United States v. Carlos A. Palacios
1987 WL 26437, 835 F.2d 230, 1987 U.S. App. LEXIS 16962 (1987)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The Double Jeopardy Clause does not prohibit separate, consecutive sentences for passing counterfeit currency and for possessing a separate quantity of counterfeit currency, as the act of possessing distinct bills not involved in the passing transaction constitutes a separate offense.
Facts:
- On September 15, 1986, Carlos Palacios entered a Bank of America branch and attempted to purchase a $4,950 cashier’s check.
- Palacios gave the teller, Sakalarian, forty-nine $100 bills and one $50 bill to pay for the check.
- When Sakalarian questioned the authenticity of the money, Palacios gave three contradictory explanations for where he obtained it: from someone else, from 'downtown,' and from a 'bank downtown.'
- Secret Service agents arrived and confirmed that 44 of the $100 bills Palacios gave the teller were counterfeit.
- Palacios told Agent Gehr that he had obtained the money from a friend in Columbia the previous year.
- A subsequent search of Palacios revealed an additional 46 counterfeit $100 bills in his pants pocket.
- Palacios later told another agent, Walter Maez, that a man named John Martinez had given him $10,500 in cash to purchase two cashier's checks and keep the difference.
Procedural Posture:
- Carlos Palacios was charged in a two-count indictment in U.S. District Court for passing and possessing counterfeit bills.
- A jury in the trial court convicted Palacios on both counts.
- The district court sentenced Palacios to four years in prison for the passing count, with a consecutive five-year term of probation for the possession count.
- Palacios (appellant) appealed his conviction and sentence to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, challenging the sufficiency of the evidence and arguing the consecutive sentences violated the Double Jeopardy Clause.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment prohibit imposing consecutive sentences for passing a quantity of counterfeit bills and for simultaneously possessing a separate, concealed quantity of counterfeit bills?
Opinions:
Majority - J. Blaine Anderson
No, the Double Jeopardy Clause does not prohibit imposing consecutive sentences in this situation. The court held that the two counts charged separate offenses because the possession charge related to a distinct set of counterfeit bills from those used in the passing transaction. The court distinguished this case from precedents like Ball v. United States and United States v. Palafox, where possession was merely incidental to and inseparable from another offense, such as receiving a firearm or distributing a drug sample. Here, Palacios possessed 46 counterfeit bills in his pocket that were entirely separate from the 44 bills he attempted to pass to the teller. Because the proof of possession was not limited to the same time, place, and contraband as the act of passing, the offenses were not the same for double jeopardy purposes, and separate punishments were permissible.
Analysis:
This decision refines the application of the Double Jeopardy Clause's prohibition on multiple punishments for the same offense, particularly in cases involving contraband. The court clarifies that offenses like possession and passing (or distribution) do not merge when they involve distinct sets of contraband, even if they occur simultaneously. This ruling provides a clear precedent for prosecutors to bring separate charges for possessing contraband that is distinct from the contraband used in a separate transactional crime, like a sale or transfer. It distinguishes between possession that is momentary and incidental to another crime and possession that is a separate, continuous act involving different items, thereby preventing defendants from getting a 'free pass' on possessing a larger stash simply because they were caught committing a lesser transactional offense.
