Pursuant to 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined that thi s opinion should not * be publishe d and is not precedent except under the limited circu mstance s set forth in 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 .4. 

### INTHE UNITED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FORTHEFIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 07- 10424
G I LB ER TO D
. H ER N AN D EZ P eti ti on er - A p p ell a n t v. R IC KT H A L E R , D ir e c to r , T e x a s D e p a r tm e n t o f C r im in a l J u s tic e , Cor r e c t i o nalI ns t i t ut i o ns D ivi s i o n R espon den t- A pp el l ee

A p p ea lf

rom the U n i tedS tates D i stri ct C ou rt f or th e N ort h ern D i st ri ctof T exas U SD C N o. 06- C V

- 69

ON P ET I T I ON F OR R EHE AR I NG
B ef ore R E AV L E Y , W IE N E R , an d S O U T H W IC K , C i rcui tJu dg es . R E AV L E Y , C i rcui tJu dg e: * T h e petit i on f

or r eh eari n g l ed to an en ba n c pol l t h at bega n bu t w as t h en c anc e l l e d , l e a v i n gt h e p e t i t i o n i n t h e h a n d s o f t h e p a n e l
. W e n o w g r ant reh ea ri n g, w i th d ra w the pr i or ru l i n g, an daff i rm the j u d gm en t of

the tri a lcou rt. United States Court of App eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D Februar y 18, 2010 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I Clerk Case: 07-10424 Document: 00511030264 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/18/2010N o. 07- 10424

2 As was e xp l ai ne d i n o urpr i o ro pi ni o n, t he Pe t i t i o ne rH e r nand e z s o ugh t r e vi e w o f

hi s Te xa s se nt e nc e be c aus e of hi s ex pe c t at i o n of

a dif fe r e ntt e r m a nd
c o m pl ai ne d t hatt he r e had be e n a vi o l at i o n of t he D o ubl e J e o pa r dyCl aus e o f t he U ni t e d St at e s Cons t i t ut i o n. B e c a u s e T e x a s h a s n o tp r o s e c u t e dH e r n a n d e z as e c o n dt i me f o rt h e s a me o ffe n s e a n dh a s n o t p u n is h e d h im m u ltip le tim e s fo r th e s a m e o ffe n s e , th e r e is no vi ol at i on o f

D oubl e Jeo par dy. See U ni t ed St at es v. D i France sc o, 449 U
. S. 117 ( 198 0)
. E ven if

M r. H erna n dez did expect f or good reaso n th a t h is sentence
w oul d end be f

or e 2 014, and ev en if i tw er e a n un expe c t ed r ul i n g by t he Texas C o u r t o f C r i mi n a l A p p e a l s i n E x P a r t e F o r w a r d , 2 5 8 S
. W. 3 d 1 5 1
. (T e x . C r i m. App. 2 00 8) , no c o ns t i t ut i o nalr i ghtha s b e e n v i o l at e d. AF F I RMED. Judges W i enerand S out hw i c k j oi n i n t hi s opi ni on by Judge Reavl ey. Jud geW i e ne rj o i ns t he c o nc ur r i ng o pi ni o n o f J udg e So ut hw i c k. Case: 07-10424 Document: 00511030264 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/18/2010N o. 07- 10424

3 SO U TH W I C K , C i r c ui tJudge, s pec i al l y c onc urr i ng. D o ubl e J e o pa r dypr o hibit s Te xa s f r o m pr o s e c ut i n g H e r nand e z as e c o nd t i m e f or th e sam e of

fen se af t er an a cqu i t t alor pu n i shi n g h i m m u l t i pl e t i m es f or th e s a m e o ffe n s e . Jo ne s v . Tho m as , 49 1 U
. S
. 37 6 , 38 1 ( 1 9 8 9 ). T h ere has been
no s ec ond pr os ec ut i on. As t o m ul t i pl e puni shm ent s, i ni t i al l y w e he l d t hat H e r nand e z ha d r ai s e d e no ughi n hi s m o t i o n t o c r e at e a nee d f o rdi s c o ve r y. The qu est i on w as w h et h er T exas adj u st ed hi s sentence i n a m an n er th at di st u rbed
ale g itim a t e e x p e c ta tio n o f its fin a lity
. S e eUn ite dS ta te s v . D iFr a n c e s c o , 449 U
. S. 1 17 , 1 37 ( 19 80 )
. The Supr e m e Cour tha s a l s o m ad e itc l e art hatt he Cons t i t ut i o n di d no t giveade fe nda nt“t he r i ghtt o kno w a ta ny s pe c i f i cm o m e nt i n ti m e w h a t th e ex a ct li m i t of h i s p u n i sh m en t w i l lturn ou t t o b e.” I d. O n r e he ar i ng, I am c o nvi nc e d t hat w e ne e d no t r e ac h t he q ue s t i o n o f t he
m anneri n whi c h t he l ang uag e i n D iFran ces co ab o utr e as o nab l e e xp e c t at i o ns w oul d app l y t o H er nandez’ s c l ai m s abouth i s se nt enc es . W hat eve rhi s per so nal
ex p ecta ti on m i gh t ha ve be en , H ern a n d ez h a s n ot i d en tifi edan y b a sis i n state l aw t hatw as t he sou rce f o rhi s e xp e c t at i o n t hatw as l at e rt hw ar t e d b y t he d e cisio n of ExPa r teF o r w a r d, 2 5 8 S .W .3 d1 5 1 (T e x . C r im . A p p . 2 0 0 8 ). T h e di scovery w e ord ered w ou l d h ave p u rsued w h et h er s en t en ces i n deed
w e r e o nc e s e rve d d i f fe r e nt l y t han Ex Part e Forw arddecl ared. T h at w as err or. T h e p u r p o s e o f d is c o v e r yis n o t t o fis h fo rt h e p o s s ib le ; itis to fin dw h a t t h e r e is g o o dca u s e to b e lie v e e x is ts . W ard v. W

h i t ley , 2 1 F .3d1 3 5 5 , 1 3 6 7 (5t h C ir. 1 9 9 4 ). “C o n c lu s io n a r ya lle g a tio n s a r e n o t e n o u g h to w a r r a n t d is c o v e r y” in as u it. I d. H erna n dez h as not show n good cau se. T h e r e fo r e , w h e th e rth e ce r ta in tyh e c l a i m s h e o n c e h a da n dth e n lo s t is
o ne t he D o ubl e J e o pa r dyCl aus e pr o t e c t s do e s no tne e d t o b e r e ac he d. Itis fo rth e s e re a s o n s th a t I jo in inth e s u b s tit u te o p in io n fo rth e p a n e l. Case: 07-10424 Document: 00511030264 Page: 3 Date Filed: 02/18/2010