Ruben Harrison, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. Frank Dyson, Etc., Etc., Arthur Lee Smith, Intervenor-Appellant

Fifth Circuit

Ruben Harrison, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. Frank Dyson, Etc., Etc., Arthur Lee Smith, Intervenor-Appellant

492 F.2d 1162, 1974 U.S. App. LEXIS 9075

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit·Decided April 19, 1974·No. 73-2967·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Plaintiff-Appellants, habitual traffic offenders who claim to be indigent, challenged certain sentencing procedures of the Dallas municipal courts as violating Tate v. Short, 1971, 401 U.S. 395, 91 S.Ct. 668, 28 L.Ed.2d 130, and Argersinger v. Hamlin, 1972, 407 U.S. 25, 92 S.Ct. 2006, 32 L.Ed.2d 530. Their objections were to the alleged automatic conversion of fines to terms in jail, and to the imposition of such jail terms without affording counsel to indigent defendants. Declaratory and injunctive relief was sought.

The complaint, insofar as it related to defendants’ future conduct, 1 was dismissed on the authority of Becker v. Thompson, 5 Cir., 1972, 459 F.2d 919. That decision has now been reversed by the Supreme Court sub nom. Steffel v. Thompson,_ U.S. _, 94 S.Ct. 1209, 39 L.Ed.2d 505 (1974). The judgment of the district court is vacated and remanded for reconsideration in light of Steffel, and for further proceedings not inconsistent therewith.

Vacated and remanded with direction.

1

. In view of our remand, we do not reach any issue arising from the dismissal on the ground of mootness of that part of the case having to do with defendants’ past conduct.

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

PER CURIAM:

Plaintiff-Appellants, habitual traffic offenders who claim to be indigent, challenged certain sentencing procedures of the Dallas municipal courts as violating Tate v. Short, 1971, 401 U.S. 395, 91 S.Ct. 668, 28 L.Ed.2d 130, and Argersinger v. Hamlin, 1972, 407 U.S. 25, 92 S.Ct. 2006, 32 L.Ed.2d 530. Their objections were to the alleged automatic conversion of fines to terms in jail, and to the imposition of such jail terms without affording counsel to indigent defendants. Declaratory and injunctive relief was sought.

The complaint, insofar as it related to defendants’ future conduct, 1 was dismissed on the authority of Becker v. Thompson, 5 Cir., 1972, 459 F.2d 919. That decision has now been reversed by the Supreme Court sub nom. Steffel v. Thompson,_ U.S. _, 94 S.Ct. 1209, 39 L.Ed.2d 505 (1974). The judgment of the district court is vacated and remanded for reconsideration in light of Steffel, and for further proceedings not inconsistent therewith.

Vacated and remanded with direction.

1

. In view of our remand, we do not reach any issue arising from the dismissal on the ground of mootness of that part of the case having to do with defendants’ past conduct.

Ruben Harrison, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. Frank Dyson, Etc., Etc., Arthur Lee Smith, Intervenor-Appellant, 492 F.2d 1162, 1974 U.S. App. LEXIS 9075 (5th Cir. 1974).

Pincite

492 F.2d 1162 (Ruben Harrison, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. Frank Dyson, Etc., Etc., Arthur Lee Smith, Intervenor-Appellant) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related