WILLIAM D. BROWNE, CHARLES B. CHAPMAN, FLOYD E. HOLLIS, ALBERT H. CARTER, CORNELL C. TANNER, AND RICHARD W. THOMPSON, INDIVIDUALLY AND IN BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, PETITIONERS-APPELLANTS,
v.
W. J. ESTELLE, ETC., RESPONDENT-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 claims of disproportionate sentences under the Texas recidivist statute require individual, case-by-case review and must be exhausted in state courts before federal habeas corpus relief is available.
Plaintiffs sought to pursue a class action habeas corpus case on behalf of Texas state prisoners challenging their life sentences under the Texas reci…
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 Disproportionate Sentencing cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM:
The petition for certificate of probable cause is granted, leave to appeal in forma pauperis is granted, and the appeal is or dered to be docketed. The decision of the district court is AFFIRMED.1
Plaintiffs seek to pursue a “class action habeas corpus” case on behalf of some 75 Texas state prisoners who are imprisoned pursuant to the Texas recidivist statute, T.C.A. Penal Code § 12.42(d).
In Capuchino v. Estelle, 506 F. 2d 440 (CA5), cert. denied, 423 U.S. 842, 96 S.Ct. 75, 46 L.Ed.2d 62 (1975), we considered whether the Texas statute, then Art. 63, T.P.C., imposed upon Capuchino punishment so grossly disproportionate to the offense that it was arbitrary and shocking to a sense of justice. In Hart v. Coiner, 483 F. 2d 136 (CA4, 1973), cert. denied 415 U.S. 938, 94 S.Ct. 1454, 39 L.Ed.2d 495 (1974), the West Virginia recidivist statute was held to be unconstitutionally applied to the particular defendant.
In the present case the petitioners complain that the prior convictions underlying the respective recidivist conviction of each member of the class are, in each instance, so grossly disproportionate to the life sentence imposed under the recidivist statute that the recidivist conviction cannot stand. This can only be determined, however, through a case-by-case review of the convictions underlying each recidivist sentence. St. Jules v. Savage, 512 F. 2d 881 (CA5, 1975), is not to the contrary. There the appellants’ challenge was not aimed at each individual sentence but was a single, unitary constitutional challenge aimed at systematic use of Art. 63 to deprive appellants as a class of due process and equal protection.
The contention made with respect to each member of the class in this case must be raised and exhausted in the Texas state courts before federal habeas is available.
AFFIRMED.
. It is appropriate to dispose of this case summarily. See Groendyke Transportation, Inc. v. Davis, 406 F. 2d 1158 (CA5, 1969).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Rummel v. Estelle, 568 F.2d 1193 (5th Cir. 1978)
-
Hubert Richard Lewis alias Charles Stanley v. Bragan, 576 F.2d 678 (5th Cir. 1978)
-
Enoch Dickinson v. Louie L. Wainwright, 626 F.2d 1184 (5th Cir. 1980)
Authorities Cited
- Groendyke Transp., Inc. v. Davis, 406 F.2d 1158 (5th Cir. 1969)
- Egger v. United States, 423 U.S. 842 (U.S. 1975)
- Capuchino v. Estelle, 423 U.S. 842 (U.S. 1975)
- Hart v. Ira M. Coiner, 483 F.2d 136 (4th Cir. 1973)
- Hart v. Coiner, 415 U.S. 938 (U.S. 1974)
- Capuchino v. Estelle, 506 F.2d 440 (5th Cir. 1975)
- ST. Jules v. Savage, 512 F.2d 881 (5th Cir. 1975)