Opinion ID: 153819
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Colorado CCE and Florida conspiracy

Text: 26 We next consider Mr. Hernandez's claim that his Florida and Colorado prosecutions placed him in double jeopardy. Specifically, Mr. Hernandez appears to argue that the charge of conspiracy to import marijuana, to which he pleaded guilty in Florida, constitutes a lesser included offense with respect to the Colorado CCE charge. Although neither the record nor the briefs provide a clear picture of the Florida proceedings, Mr. Hernandez concedes that his Florida conviction came after his Colorado conviction. Aplt's Reply Br. at 12. Hence the Colorado conviction is not subject to a double jeopardy attack since, even if at the time of his Colorado conviction and sentence Mr. Hernandez had already been indicted in Florida, a mere indictment does not cause jeopardy to attach. See Crist v. Bretz, 437 U.S. 28, 36, 98 S.Ct. 2156, 2161, 57 L.Ed.2d 24 (1978) (citing the federal rule that jeopardy attaches when the jury is empaneled and sworn). 27 Alternatively, Mr. Hernandez's claim that his convictions in Colorado and Florida amounted to double jeopardy, Aplt's Br. at 22, could be construed as an attack on his Florida prosecution and conviction, which the government did pursue after the previous Colorado conviction. However, such a claim--attacking a sentence imposed by another federal district court--could not have been entertained by the Colorado district court in this case. Again, Mr. Hernandez brought this claim under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, which provides that [a] prisoner in custody under sentence of a court ... may move the court which imposed the sentence to vacate, set aside or correct the sentence. 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (emphasis added). 28 U.S.C. § 2255 also expressly mandates: An application for a writ of habeas corpus ... shall not be entertained if it appears that the applicant has failed to apply for relief, by motion, to the court which sentenced him.... Id. See Bradshaw v. Story, 86 F.3d 164, 166 (10th Cir.1996); Tripati v. Henman, 843 F.2d 1160, 1163 (9th Cir.) (holding that the district court correctly dismissed the movant's § 2255 motion for lack of jurisdiction because the motion was not brought in the sentencing court), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 982, 109 S.Ct. 533, 102 L.Ed.2d 565 (1988). Nor can Mr. Hernandez succeed by attacking the Colorado indictment on the grounds that it set [him] up for 'prearranged' double jeopardy. Rec. vol. 2, doc. 94, at 5. See Flores v. United States, 338 F.2d 966, 967 (10th Cir.1964) (holding that the appellant could not challenge the sufficiency of an indictment on the grounds that it fail[ed] to protect him against the possibility of double jeopardy). Again, because we conclude that this claim should have been dismissed, the district court's failure to rule on this issue does not alter our holding that it was proper to deny Mr. Hernandez's § 2255 motion.