Austin v. Cain
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 20961
5th Cir.2011Background
- Austin was arrested in a 2003 sting operation for cocaine; he attempted to flee, colliding with officers during the arrest.
- Convicted in Louisiana on two counts of attempted first degree murder, one count of possession with intent to distribute cocaine, and one count of aggravated battery; life sentence imposed for the habitual-offender enhancement on count one.
- Direct appeal affirmed; state habeas relief denied; he filed a federal habeas petition under AEDPA in 2007 challenging multiple claims, including double jeopardy.
- Six counts of attempted first degree murder were charged without specifying which subsection; jury returned a general verdict and trial court sentenced Austin to multiple concurrent terms.
- The district court denied relief; we granted a COA as to the double jeopardy claim; the issue on review is whether the cocaine distribution conviction bars punishment for the attempted murder convictions under the Double Jeopardy Clause.
- The court ultimately concludes that the concurrent-sentence doctrine is inapplicable and that no double jeopardy violation occurred because possession with intent to distribute cocaine is not a necessary element of the attempted murder offenses under the applicable Louisiana statute.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Double jeopardy: distinct offenses or same offense? | Austin argues possession with intent to distribute cocaine and attempted murder are the same offense. | State contends multiple bases for attempted murder; cocaine distribution is not a necessary element of the murder charges. | No double jeopardy violation; separate offenses upheld. |
| Concurrent sentence doctrine applicability in state habeas review? | Austin seeks relief under the doctrine to avoid adverse collateral consequences. | State argues the doctrine should not apply post-AEDPA in this context. | Doctrine not applied; review proceeds under AEDPA standards. |
Key Cases Cited
- Illinois v. Vitale, 447 U.S. 410 (U.S. 1980) (analysis of Blockburger; multiple bases need not render offenses the same)
- Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299 (U.S. 1932) (elements test: each offense must require proof of a fact the other does not)
- Brown v. Ohio, 432 U.S. 161 (U.S. 1977) (lesser-included offenses and double jeopardy analyzed when same elements apply)
- Harris v. Oklahoma, 433 U.S. 682 (U.S. 1977) (when greater offense cannot be proven without the lesser, double jeopardy may apply)
- Whalen v. United States, 445 U.S. 684 (U.S. 1980) (examples of overlapping offenses and necessary elements under Blockburger)
- Dixon v. United States, 509 U.S. 688 (U.S. 1993) (overruled Grady-type 'same conduct' reasoning; clarified Blockburger application)
- Sekou v. Blackburn, 796 F.2d 108 (5th Cir. 1986) (Vitale-based analysis in double jeopardy for underlying felonies in felony murder)
- Neville v. Butler, 867 F.2d 886 (5th Cir. 1989) (double jeopardy tied to underlying felony basis for felony-murder convictions)
- Neal v. Puckett, 286 F.3d 230 (5th Cir. 2002) (limits review to state court decision; AEDPA reasonableness standard)