Opinion
3-02-CV-150-L, 3-02-CV-150-L
October 15, 2002
CONSOLIDATED FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C § 636(b)(1)(B) came on to be considered the petitions for habeas corpus relief filed in the above styled and numbered actions, and the magistrate judge finds and recommends as follows:
On March 1, 2002, Judge Lindsay reassigned the petition filed by Catalina Corral to the undersigned for proposed findings and conclusions.
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS:
Cipriano Corral and Catalina Corral, husband and wife, filed their petitions seeking habeas corpus relief based upon their claim that the State's pending criminal prosecutions should be barred because such prosecutions would violate the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Their claim is cognizable in a federal habeas petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C § 2241. E.g. see Stringerv. Williams, 161 F.3d 259, 262 (9 Cir. 1998).
Although the procedural postures in which the petitioners sought federal habeas corpus relief are different, the operative facts on which Cipriano Corral and Catalina Corral seek relief are remarkably similar to those considered in Ledford v. Thomas, 144 F. Supp.2d 709 (S.D. Tex. 2000), aff'd 275 F.3d 471 (9th Cir. 2001), cert. denied ___ U.S. ___ 122 S.Ct. 2599 (2002).
Ledford sought habeas corpus relief in federal court after being convicted for possession of cocaine with intent to deliver and after his conviction had become final. See 275 F.3d at 473. The Corrals are currently charged with the offense of aggravated possession of cocaine with intent to deliver in the indictments returned in F-93-23937-FI and F-93-23938-FI.
In both Ledford and in the case of Mr. and Mrs Corral (the "Petitioners") the Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts assessed taxes and penalties based upon their respective possessions of illegal drugs. See Texas Tax Code Ann. § 159.001-.206 (Vernon 1992). In Matthew Ledford's case a total of $245,740.00 was assessed.
In Ledford both the assessment and the filing of a tax lien occurred prior to his indictment. See 144 F. Supp. 2nd at 710-11. In Petitioners' case their indictments were returned by the Dallas County grand jury on September 20, 1993, but the tax was not assessed until November 16, 1993. Prior to his indictment Matthew Ledford paid $100.00 of the tax assessment. In the case of Mr. and Mrs. Corral the assessment became final and the bank account of Cipriano Corral was frozen and ultimately funds in his account in the amount of $2,434.79 were delivered to the Comptroller on October 14, 1994 However, it is clear that in neither Ledford nor in the present instance was the assessed tax paid in full.
Mr. Corral's account was determined to be community property belonging to him and to Catalina Corral. See No. 05-97-00891-CR; No. 05-97-00845-CR; Fifth Court of Appeals opinion filed on November 18, 1997, at p. 3, n. 2.
In applying the standards set out in the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, the District Court in Ledford found that the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals' decision in Ex Parte Ward, 964 S.W.2d 617 (Texas Crim.App. 1998) (Ward III) did not constitute an "unreasonable application" of federal law. See Ledford, 144
F. Supp. 2nd at 719-725 The District Court's conclusion was fully endorsed and adopted by the Fifth Circuit in its opinion affirming the lower court's judgment. The Fifth Circuit's opinion in Ledford is binding precedent on this court and is dispositive of Petitioners' Double Jeopardy claim.
RECOMMENDATION:
For the foregoing reasons it is recommended that the District Court enter judgments denying Cipriano Corral and Catalina Corral's petitions for habeas corpus relief
A copy of this recommendation shall be transmitted to counsel for the parties.