Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-88-01798/USCOURTS-ca10-88-01798-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Attorney General of the State of Wyoming
Appellee
Charles Edward Birr
Appellant
Duane Shillinger
Appellee

Document Text:

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

CLERK 

)tlnitdt ~tntrs Olourt of c'"~flfll'als 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

OFFICE OF THE CLERK 

C404 UNITED STATES COURTHOUSE 

DENVER. COLORADO 80294 

March 1, 1990 

TO: ALL RECIPIENTS OF THE CAPTIONED OPINION 

RE: No. 88-1798 

Birr, vs. Shillinger, et al. 

TELEPHONE 

(303> 844·3157 

<FTS> 564·3157 

The court has made the following correction in its opinion 

which was filed on January 22, 1990. 

Page 2, first paragraph, 5th line down should read as 

follows: 

"underlying felony of aggravated robbery. 

sentenced" 

Petitioner \.Yas 

Very truly yours, 

ROBERT L. HOECKER, Clerk 

RLH/rnt 

Appellate Case: 88-1798 Document: 01019297282 Date Filed: 01/22/1990 Page: 1 
PUBLISH 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

CHARLES EDWARD BIRR, 

Petitioner-Appellant, 

FILED 

Unired States Court of Appeals 

T .;nth Cir·:ui·: 

JAN 2 2 1990 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

v. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

No. 88-1798 

DUANE SHILLINGER: and the ATTORNEY 

GENERAL OF THE STATE OF WYOMING, 

Respondents-Appellees. 

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF WYOMING 

(D.C. No. 88-043) 

Submitted on the briefs: 

Charles Edward Birr, pro se. 

Terry L. Armitage, Assistant Attorney General, Cheyenne, Wyoming, 

for Respondents-Appellees. 

Before BALDOCK, BRORBY, and EBEL, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM. 

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel 

has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially 

Appellate Case: 88-1798 Document: 01019297282 Date Filed: 01/22/1990 Page: 2 
assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed• R. App. P. 

34(a); lOth Cir. R. 34.1.9. The case is therefore ordered 

submitted without oral argument. 

Petitioner Charles Edward Birr has appealed from the denial 

of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 u.s.c. 

§ 2254. Following a guilty plea, petitioner was convicted by a 

Wyoming court of accessory to felony murder and accessory to the 

underlying felony of aggregated robbery. Petitioner was sentenced 

to life imprisonment for the murder and twenty to twenty-five 

years for the robbery with the sentences to run consecutively. 

The convictions and the sentences were affirmed by the Wyoming 

Supreme Court on direct appeal. Birr v. State, 744 P.2d 1117 

(Wyo. 1987). 

In support of his request for federal habeas relief, 

petitioner has argued that his sentences for both felony murder 

and the underlying felony violate the constitutional guarantee 

against double jeopardy. The double jeopardy clause serves three 

primary purposes. "It protects against a second prosecution for 

the same offense after acquittal. It protects against a second 

prosecution for the same offense after a conviction. And it 

protects against multiple punishments for the same offense." 

North Carolina v. Pearce, 395 u.s. 711, 717 (1969). 

Petitioner's argument rests on the third protection. Our 

review of this claim, however, is limited. In cumulative 

sentencing situations, such as here, the double jeopardy clause 

"does no more than prevent the sentencing court from prescribing 

greater punishment than the legislature intended." Missouri v. 

Appellate Case: 88-1798 Document: 01019297282 Date Filed: 01/22/1990 Page: 3 
Hunter, 459 u.s. 359, 366 (1983). In assessing whether a state 

legislature intended to prescribe cumulative punishments for a 

single criminal incident, we are bound by a state court's 

determination of the legislature's intent. See Ohio v. Johnson, 

467 U.S. 493, 499 (l984)("We accept, as we must, the Ohio Supreme 

Court's determination that the Ohio legislature did not intend 

cumulative punishment for the two pairs of crimes involved 

here."): Missouri v. Hunter, 459 u.s. at 368 

Missouri Supreme Court has recognized 

intended that punishment for violations 

cumulative. We are bound to accept 

("In addition, the 

that the legislature 

of the statutes be 

the Missouri court's 

construction of that St~te's statutes."). Thus, for purposes of 

double jeopardy analysis, once a state court has determined that 

the state legislature intended cumulative punishments, a federal 

habeas court must defer to that determination. See, ~' Banner 

v. Davis, 886 F.2d 777, 780 (6th Cir. l989)(federal court bound by 

Tennessee Supreme Court decision that the Tennessee legislature 

intended cumulative punishment for aggravated assault and firing 

into an occupied dwelling); Deloach v. Wainwright, 777 F.2d 1524, 

1525-26 (llth Cir. l985)(federal court bound by Florida Supreme 

Court finding that the Florida legislature intended multiple 

punishments for felony murder and the underlying felony). 

Here, a majority of the Wyoming Supreme Court, in affirming 

petitioner's convictions and sentences over the dissent of two 

justices, held that the Wyoming legislature intended cumulative 

punishment for accessory to felony murder and accessory to the 

underlying felony of aggravated robbery. Birr, 744 P.2d at 

3 

Appellate Case: 88-1798 Document: 01019297282 Date Filed: 01/22/1990 Page: 4 
... 1120-22. The majority's interpretation of the legislative intent 

for the imposition of multiple punishments is binding on this 

court irrespective of the views of the dissenters. Therefore, 

since the requisite legislative intent to impose multiple 

punishments exists, we find no violation of the double jeopardy 

clause. 

Accordingly, the judgment of the United States District Court 

for the District of Wyoming is AFFIRMED. 

4 

Appellate Case: 88-1798 Document: 01019297282 Date Filed: 01/22/1990 Page: 5