Gustavo Lucio v. United States

394 F.2d 511, 1968 U.S. App. LEXIS 7008
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit·Decided May 9, 1968·No. 25672·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

The appellant’s post-conviction motion to vacate his federal court sentence for violation of the narcotics laws is predicated upon the sole ground that a disparity between his sentence and that of a co-defendant amounted to a violation of his rights under the due process and equal protection clauses of the Constitution of the United States.

The appellant was found guilty by a jury under two counts and received an eight year sentence on each count, to run concurrently. His co-defendant, an eighteen year old girl, pleaded guilty to one count and received a sentence under the Youth Corrections Act. She was subject to parole, 18 U.S.C. § 5010(b), while he was not, 26 U.S.C. § 7237(d).

The trial court had the duty to consider the character, background and extent of participation of each defendant in the transaction, and to treat them as individuals in arriving at a decision as *512 to just sentences. The appellant is in no position to make his co-defendant’s sentence a basis for complaint that his constitutional rights were violated.

Affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Gustavo Lucio v. United States, 394 F.2d 511, 1968 U.S. App. LEXIS 7008 (5th Cir. 1968).

394 F.2d 511 (Gustavo Lucio v. United States) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

United States v. Frazier
220 F. App'x 294 (Fifth Circuit, 2007)
Paul Willoughby Granville v. United States
613 F.2d 125 (Fifth Circuit, 1980)
Wilkinson v. State
322 So. 2d 620 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1975)
Cecil T. Hart v. C. Murray Henderson, Warden
449 F.2d 183 (Fifth Circuit, 1971)