Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

Yeager v. Estelle

489 F.2d 276

Type
Opinion
Court
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1973-12-21
Topic
general

PER CURIAM: This is an appeal from the denial of a habeas corpus petition, raising the sole question of whether the district court erred in concluding that a 500 year sentence assessed by a jury finding him guilty of murder with malice constituted cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the eighth amendment.1 We affirm. In reviewing appellant’s claim we are governed by the principle that a sentence within the statutory limits will not be upset unless it is so disproportionate to the crime committed that it shocks human sensibilities. Hart v. Coiner, 483 F.2d 136, 139-140 (4th Cir. 1973); United States v. Drotar, 416 F.2d 914, 916 (5th Cir. 1969).

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed Yeager v. Estelle. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Authority status
pending
Cited by
13 opinions
YEAGER v. ESTELLE,489 F.2d 276(5th Cir. 1973)
JAMES DOUGLAS McARTHUR YEAGER, #226841, PETITIONER-APPELLANT, v. W. J.
ESTELLE, DIRECTOR, TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, RESPONDENT-APPELLEE.
No. 73-2656.
Summary Calendar.fn*
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
December 21, 1973.
Certiorari Denied April 1, 1974.
James Douglas McArthur Yeager, pro se.

Robert C. Flowers, Asst. Atty. Gen., Austin, Tex., for respondent-appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas.
Before GEWIN, COLEMAN and MORGAN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
[1] This is an appeal from the denial of a habeas corpus petition, raising the sole question of whether the district court erred in concluding that a 500 year sentence assessed by a jury finding him guilty of murder with malice constituted cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the eighth amendment.1We affirm.

[2] In reviewing appellant's claim we are governed by the principle that a sentence within the statutory limits will not be upset unless it is so disproportionate to the crime committed that it shocks human sensibilities. Hart v. Coiner,483 F.2d 136,139-140(4th Cir. 1973); United States v. Drotar,416 F.2d 914,916(5th Cir. 1969). Article 1257, Vernon's Annotated Penal Code (1961) prescribes as a penalty for murder with malice ". . . confinement in the penitentiary for life or for any term of years not less than two." The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals has determined that a 500 years sentence is within the statutory prescription.SeeYeager v. State,482 S.W.2d 637(Tex.Cr.App. 1972);seealsoSills v. State,472 S.W.2d 119,120(Tex.Cr.App. 1971) (1,000 year sentence is within statute).Page 277

[3] While we concede, as did the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals,seeYeager v. State,supra,that a 500 year sentence is patently absurd, we subscribe to its view and that of the district court, that the imposition of this sentence does not rise to a constitutional violation in the circumstances of this case. Under Article 42.12, § 15, Vernon's Annotated Code of Criminal Procedure (Supp. 1972), appellant will be eligible for parole upon receiving credit for service of twenty years of his sentence or after serving one-third of the sentence, whichever is less. Thus, the practical effect of his sentence is no more onerous than that where a life term is assessed. Unwilling to exalt form over substance, we conclude that appellant's sentence is not so disproportionate to the crime committed that it shocks human sensibilities.

[4] Affirmed.Page 282
  1. Rule 18, 5th Cir. See Isbell Enterprises, Inc. v. Citizens Casualty Co. of New York et al., 5th Cir. 1970,431 F.2d 409, Part I. ↩
  2. There was no evidentiary hearing in this case and it appears that none was necessary in view of appellant's contention. The United States Magistrate reviewed the case and made recommendations to the district court. According to the district court's order the court not only reviewed the findings of the Magistrate but it also reviewed the "pleadings, files and records in this case." ↩