Sirucek v. Mahoney
Filing
5
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 3 in full. William Sirucek's petition is DISMISSED, and a certificate ofappealability is DENIED. Signed by Judge Donald W. Molloy on 11/29/2011. Mailed to Sirucek. (TAG, )
FILED
NOV 29 2011
PATRICK E, DUFFY, CLERK
By OEP\JTY CLERK, MISSOULA
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA
I '
MISSOULA DIVISION
WILLIAM J, SIRUCEK,
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Petitioner,
v.
MIKE MAHONEY, Warden,
Montana State Prison,
Respondent.
CV 11-147-M-DWM-JCL
ORDER
-----------------------)
On November 15, 2011, Petitioner William J. Sirucek, proceeding pro se,
filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. (Dkt # 1). The matter was referred to
Magistrate Judge Lynch under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b). Judge Lynch issued his
Findings and Recommendation on November 16, 2011. (Dkt # 3). He
recommended that Sirucek's petition be dismissed on the merits and a certificate
of appealability be denied.
Mr. Sirucek timely objected to Judge Lynch's Findings and
1
Recommendation on November 28, 20 II. (Dkt # 4). He is therefore entitled to de
novo review of the specified findings or recommendations to which he objects. 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The portions of the Findings and Recommendation not
specifically objected to are reviewed for clear error. McDonnell Douglas Corp. v.
Commodore Bus. Mach .. Inc., 656 F.2d 1309,1313 (9th Cir. 1981).
On April II, 2007, Mr. Sirucek was convicted in Montana state court for a
fourth or subsequent offense of driving under the influence ("DUI"). The penalty
for a fourth or subsequent DUI is commitment to the custody of the Department of
Corrections for 13 months, followed by a suspended five-year prison sentence.
Mont. Code Ann. § 61-8-731 (1). Mr. Sirucek's suspended prison sentence was
revoked on September 24, 2008, and he was resentenced to serve four years in
prison. (Dkt # I). Mr. Sirucek argues in his petition that the 13 month sentence,
coupled with the suspended five-year prison sentence, violates the Double
Jeopardy Clause of the United States Constitution. See U.S. Const. amend. V.
The Court agrees with Judge Lynch that Mr. Sirucek's claim fails. The
punishment provided in Montana Code Annotated § 61-8-731(1) does not amount
to a double jeopardy violation. The Double Jeopardy Clause "serves principally as
a restraint on courts and prosecutors. The legislature remains free under the
Double Jeopardy Clause to define crimes and fix punishments ...." Belgarde v.
2
Montana, 123 F.3d 1210,1215 (9th Cir. 1997) (quoting Brown v. Ohio, 432 U.S.
161, 165 (1977». Thus, the Double Jeopardy Clause does not bar the punishment
set out in § 61-8-731(1).
Indeed, as Judge Lynch observed in his Findings and Recommendation,
persons convicted of an offense are commonly sentenced to different types of
custody under the oversight of different authorities. Judge Lynch correctly noted
that "[a] person convicted of one offense may be sentenced to a prison term,
followed by condition release and accompanied by a fine and restitution." 2-3 (dkt
# 3). Such punishments do not run afoul ofthe Double Jeopardy Clause. See. e.g.,
Moor v. Palmer, 603 F.3d 658, 660 (9th Cir. 2010); United States v. Soto-Olivas,
44 F.3d 788, 789-90 (9th Cir. 1995).
In his objections, Mr. Sirucek merely repeats the arguments he made in his
petition. For the reasons above, his petition and objections are without merit.
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the Findings and Recommendation (dkt
# 3) is adopted in full;
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that William Sirucek's petition is
DISMISSED. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter by separate document a
judgment of dismissal.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a certificate ofappealability is DENIED.
3
Dated this
~day o~
2011.
011 y, District Judge
United S es Di trict Court
4
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?