PEDRO FERMIN BARRAJAS v. << (2023)

Applicant pled guilty in federal court to being a felon in possession of a firearm.¹ He later pled guilty in state court to being a felon in possession of a firearm. In this state habeas application, he contends that these two convictions were for the same transaction and that they are the same offense for double jeopardy purposes. But the offenses were prosecuted by different sovereigns, and under Gamble v. United States, that makes them different offenses for double jeopardy purposes.² I agree with Justice Gorsuch's dissent in Gamble that the “separate sovereigns” doctrine is a “colossal exception” to the right against double jeopardy that “finds no meaningful support in the text of the Constitution, its original public meaning, structure, or history.”³ But that dissent did not carry the day, and the majority opinion in Gamble forecloses relief.

FOOTNOTES

1.   See United States v. Barajas, 810 Fed. Appx. 356 (5th Cir. 2020) (not designated for publication).

2.   139 S. Ct. 1960, 1964 (2019). The offenses at issue in Gamble were even the same type of offenses at issue in this case—federal and state felon-in-possession-of-firearm offenses. Id.

3.   Id. at 1996 (Gorsuch, J., dissenting).

KELLER, P.J., filed a concurring opinion in which HERVEY, WALKER and MCCLURE, JJ., joined.