Johnnie Pruett v. State of Texas
470 F.2d 1182
5th Cir.
1973
Check Treatment

*2 BROWN, appealed. R. that he Before JOHN Chief is WISDOM, BELL, GEWIN, Judge, and panel decision the Court said COLEMAN, THORNBERRY, GOLD- inter alia: GODBOLD, BERG, AINSWORTH, DY- us, we have In case before CLARK, SIMPSON, MORGAN, ER, IN- statutes, 5118a and 6184 Article state RONEY, GRAHAM and Circuit standing (1), alone each of which * * * appear to violate the not DYER, Judge: to Constitu- the] Amendment [14th of Texas At the of the State behest together tion, enforcement so but their the Court case was considered deny felon a convicted as to en banc. While we adhere to jail pending the is in time while he holding emphasize decision at the his case when same of is limited situation con- allowing to con- time time such cerning finality of the lack of appealed, not who have victed felons Texas, pending appeal in which obtains allowing good prisoners time to and serving prospec- and that the shall jail, sentences misdemeanor only. tive equal protec- clearly denial abridges the of the laws which tion In Texas a conviction appealed privileges of the United until it has been of a citizen is not final Ap (Pruett) affirmed the Court of Criminal deprives him States peals of of Texas. In the in the State process law. liberty due without terim, from final conviction to convic put [sic] laws The enforcement such indigent tion, prisoner appealing premium sentences on not jail the sheriff. Once threat constitutes a conviction conviction becomes person that a convicted prison and he transferred state good time he peals he lose in the is thereafter coun- This be cannot otherwise have. prison Department of Corrections. The tenanced. er, course, has no custodian. choice of Texas, F.2d 51. 5 Cir. In Pruett v. this case the State of holding. give “good Pruett time” credit under reaffirm this argues Wainwright, eon that disas- of Texas ap consequences will 83 9 L.Ed.2d or on trous administrative Douglas California, 1963, points peal, It out flow from our decision. have not been that required U.S. The they kept, keep, requiring nor have cred given concerning con- from conviction to final records the behavior of it to *3 penal victed are on conviction under the Texas felons whose cases system, present parole penalty however, remove a Furthermore, the is to system indigent solely imposed upon the an a not come to of the until he chooses to constitutional attention Parole Board exercise his right “finally” convicted, “assuming Such a conviction. adjunct practice obviously lengthy period spent rather not an of time county jail pending appeal (cid:127)the ascertainment retro the of truth. While a convict- eligible spective application practice very ed felon this could well become parole injustice, eliminate some before his conviction became light final.” viewed in the the criteria, countervailing purpose the be may While these considerations practice hind the not such would as bearing upon applying good serious require anything except prospective ap retrospectively, proper adminis- plication. Denno, 1967, v. Stovall 388 Cf. steps they trative can be taken so that 293, 299-300, 1967, U.S. 87 S.Ct. 18 L.Ed. pose problems no in the future. 2d 1199. proceed upon premise the respect prong With to the second apply, that “we are neither the Stovall test there can be no doubt of prohibited applying, nor from a decision Texas’ faith reliance on the rule retrospectively.” Walker, v. Linkletter time was not to be credited 1965, 618, 629, 1731, 381 U.S. 85 S.Ct. indigent prisoner 1738, 14 L.Ed.2d 601. In Stovall v. Den jail pending appeal. State ex rel. See no, 1967, 1967, 388 U.S. Clawson, 1971, Tex.Cr.App., v. Vance 465 1970, 18 the criteria for S.W.2d 164. The rule uni- has been making retrospective determinations formly applied and until had this case “(a) were stated to be: never been contested. standards, (b) be served the new Finally, asserts, think we extent of the reliance law enforcement correctly so, time rule on standards, authorities the old require, applied here retro- (c) the effect on the administration of spectively, would release torrent justice of a retroactive of the plications corpus seeking habeas new standards.” recomputation of time served. It would virtually impossible to make such retrospective application computations because neither the decisions, of its constitutional the Su nor preme guar Court has centered on those kept respect Corrections has records with affecting fact-finding process antees during to the behavior of convicted felons emphasized pur and has that the “basic pendency appeals. of their pose aof trial is the determination of Shott, 1965, truth.” Tehan v. circumstances, Under the we conclude 406, 416, 459, 465, 86 S.Ct. 15 L.Ed.2d that our shall have This concern application only; say, for a fair trial stems is to prevent from a period desire to conviction time credit for the from convic- persons by protecting of innocent computed in tion to final conviction shall be tegrity judicial of the process, whether and accrue as to all at certain arraignments, kinds of Hamil which become affirmance of Alabama, 1961, ton Appeals 368 U.S. of the Court Criminal trial, opinion. S.Ct. at Gid- the date of Texas after modified, herein we adhere to As

opinion of this Court.

judgment of the district court Judge, with

AINSWORTH, Circuit Judge joins, SIMPSON,

whom

dissenting: Dandridge respectfully

I dissent. See Williams, 484-486, L.Ed.2d 491 Pearce, (1970). Cf. North Carolina v. *4 WELLS,

Edward T. Plaintiff-Appellant, Boyd Wells, City, T. al., Edward Salt WARD et Lake Defendants- Appellees. Utah, plaintiff-appellant. Worsley, Harold Christensen G. City, Christensen, Snow & Salt Lake United States Court of defendants-appellees. Utah, for Tenth Circuit.

Dec. HILL, HOLLOWAY Before DOYLE, Circuit Judge. DOYLE, E.

WILLIAM Plaintiff-appellant seeks a reversal judgment court of the district based defendants-appellees’ granting of on the summary judgment on behalf motion defendants. named numerous allegation complaint The basic illegally falsely appellant was imprisoned his arrested sign ticket issued traffic failure illegal alleged parking. theory taken is that he was Plaintiff’s the issuance into sign refusal the ticket his subsequently parking ticket and jailer and the of the Peace the Justice accept bond bail make a bondsman card and