Opinion ID: 470407
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: first federal petition

Text: 11 In February 1983 Peoples filed a pro se habeas corpus petition in federal court. One of the grounds alleged was: 12 Change allegedly adding to punishment for prior offense. Increase in length of sentence. 13 In the supporting facts for this allegation Peoples alleged that he had been found guilty of second degree murder and sentenced to 20 years. He described the appeal to the court of criminal appeals, the remand, and the resentencing. He stated that on remand the court changed the charge from second degree murder to first degree murder 2 and also changed the sentence from 20 years to life imprisonment. He alleged that because he testified at trial the trial court was fully aware of his prior record and at that time did not mention anything about the habitual offender law, and that he was not informed by the court or by his attorney prior to appealing the case that he could be resentenced under the habitual offender law. And he added, If I had been inform of such ruling I probably wouldn't have appeal this case. 14 The state answered, admitting that the trial court was aware of the two priors when Peoples was originally sentenced, and that Peoples was not informed by the trial court or by his attorney when he gave notice of appeal that the case might or could be remanded for resentencing under HFOA. On the resentencing issue, the state responded that Peoples' being resentenced under the mandatory provision of the HFOA did not violate his constitutional protections. 3 15 In a traverse to the state's answer Peoples set out that the possibility of facing greater sentence should a retrial be ordered operates as an improper and unconstitutional deterrent to assertion of a defendant's right to appeal. The district court held 16 Petitioner's resentencing was also not violative of the Constitution. It is well established that a sentence, which fails to comply with the criminal statute by which it is authorized, is erroneous and may be set aside on appeal or in habeas corpus proceedings. See, Bozza v. United States, 330 U.S. 160 [67 S.Ct. 645, 91 L.Ed. 818] (1947); In re Bonner, 151 U.S. 242 [14 S.Ct. 323, 38 L.Ed. 149] (1893). In Bonner, the Court rejected the idea that a prisoner, whose guilt is established by verdict, may escape punishment because the Court committed an error in passing the sentence. In this case, the trial court set aside the sentence which it had no authority to impose and did what the law required it to do. See, In re Bonner, supra; see, also, United States v. DiFrancesco, 449 U.S. 117 [101 S.Ct. 426, 66 L.Ed.2d 328] (1980). Thus, Petitioner's contention that he has been subjected to multiple punishment is without merit because the guarantee against multiple punishment is not involved here. 17 The court dismissed the petition. Peoples did not appeal.