United States v. Grist

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
DecidedApril 24, 1997
Docket96-6331
StatusPublished

This text of United States v. Grist (United States v. Grist) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
United States v. Grist, (10th Cir. 1997).

Opinion

F I L E D United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS APR 24 1997 TENTH CIRCUIT PATRICK FISHER Clerk

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee, v. No. 96-6331 (D.C. No. CIV-96-305-C) JERRY L. GRIST, (Western District of Oklahoma)

Defendant-Appellant.

ORDER

Before SEYMOUR, Chief Judge, PORFILIO, Circuit Judge, and MURPHY, Circuit Judge.

Jerry Lee Grist attempts to appeal from an order denying his petition for vacation

of sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 on the grounds of double jeopardy. He contends after

his consent to a judicial forfeiture of his property he could not be convicted on the

substantive count upon which the forfeiture was predicated. Although he admits he did

not contest the forfeiture, he maintains his plea of guilty was barred by the double

jeopardy clause of the Fifth Amendment. We have previously held a person is not placed

in jeopardy by a judicial forfeiture unless he contests it in the district court. United States

v. Hardwell , 80 F.3d 1471, 1485, (10th Cir. 1996); United States v. German, 76 F.3d

315, 318 (10th Cir. 1996). Mr. Grist also argues he was denied effective assistance of counsel because his

attorney did not raise the double jeopardy issue prior to the entry of his guilty plea, nor

did he present the issue on direct appeal. Of course, because the issue was not available,

failure to raise it cannot constitute denial of effective assistance.

Thus, Mr. Grist, having failed to preserve the double jeopardy issue, has failed to

raise justiciable questions in this court. Id. The certificate of appealability is DENIED

and the appeal is DISMISSED. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2); Lennox v. Evans, 87 F.3d 431

(10th Cir. 1996). The previous orders entered for the payment of a filing fee are

VACATED. United States v. Simmonds, ___ F.3d ___, No. 96-3287, 1997 WL 177560

(10th Cir. Kan. Apr. 14, 1997).

ENTERED FOR THE COURT

John C. Porfilio Circuit Judge

-2-

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

Related

Lennox v. Evans
87 F.3d 431 (Tenth Circuit, 1996)
United States v. Daniel Curtis German
76 F.3d 315 (Tenth Circuit, 1996)
United States v. Hardwell
80 F.3d 1471 (Tenth Circuit, 1996)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
United States v. Grist, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-grist-ca10-1997.