STUART W. DUBOIS, PETITIONER AND APPELLANT,
v.
CARL G. HOCKER, WARDEN, NEVADA STATE PRISON, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that the denial of habeas corpus relief was proper because the state and municipal prosecutions, though arising from the same incident, did not charge identical offenses, thus not violating double jeopardy principles.
DuBois pleaded guilty to municipal charges for carrying a concealed weapon, discharging a firearm, and gross intoxication. While serving his city sent…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Double Jeopardy cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM :
The order denying habeas corpus relief is affirmed.
On a Reno municipal prosecution DuBois pleaded guilty to charges under city ordinances for:
1. Carrying a concealed weapon;
2. Discharging a firearm in a public place;
3. Gross intoxication.
While serving the city sentence, he was charged and convicted under a Nevada statute as an ex-felon in possession of firearms. The charges all grew out of the same incident.
DuBois has attempted habeas corpus in the state court and lost. Thus, he has sought relief on the federal side.
We reject the contention of double jeopardy, although all charges were the same in time and the gun was common to all of them. Waller v. Florida, 397 U.S. 387, 90 S.Ct. 1184, 25 L.Ed.2d 435 (1970), precludes prosecution by a state and a municipality of the same offense. But the offenses were not identical. He still could have been guilty of the state offense without being guilty of any of the three municipal offenses. That is one fair working test.
Other points we find without merit.