Sylvester Tribbitt v. Louie L. Wainwright, Sec'y, Dep't of Offender Rehab., 540 F.2d 840 (5th Cir. 1976). · Go Syfert
Search
Sylvester Tribbitt v. Louie L. Wainwright, Sec'y, Dep't of Offender Rehab., 540 F.2d 840 (5th Cir. 1976). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
52 citation events (29 in the last 25 years) across 16 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Crampton, No. 9:23-cv-00226 (N.D.N.Y. Feb. 5, 2026)
Treatment trajectory · 1976 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1976 2001 2026
How cited ↗
Cited for
At page 841 Determining when joinder of offenses violates due process28 citing casesjoinder must “actually” render trial fundamentally unfair before habeas relief is appropriate4 citing courts put it this way
  • Crampton, No. 9:23-cv-00226 (N.D.N.Y. Feb. 5, 2026).
    “The rule has been interpreted by the level of a constitutional violation only if it ‘actually New York courts to require, ‘at the very least, that any matter render[s] petitioner's state trial fundamentally unfair and which a party wishes…
  • Hightower v. Dixon, No. 2:23-cv-14356 (S.D. Fla. Sept. 9, 2025).
    DE 8-2 at 109, Ex. 5; Hightower v. State, 288 So. 3d 654 (Fla. 4th DCA 2019). counts only if trying the counts together “actually render[s] petitioner’s state trial fundamentally unfair and hence, violative of due process.” Tribbitt v. Wai…
  • Burns v. Capra, No. 9:22-cv-00381 (N.D.N.Y. Feb. 26, 2025).
    An erroneous “[j]oinder of offenses rises to the level of a constitutional violation only if it ‘actually render[s] petitioner’s state trial fundamentally unfair and hence, violative of due process.’” Herring v. Meachum, 11 F.3d 374, 377 (…
  • Singer v. The Attorney Gen. of the State of New Jersey, No. 3:19-cv-12497 (D.N.J. Sept. 28, 2023).unpublished
    Pa. Mar. 6, 2012) (citing 7ribbitt v. Wainwright, 540 F.2d 840, 841 (2d Cir. 1976); United States v. Walker 657 F.3d 160, 170 (3d Cir. 2011) United States y.
  • Hicks v. Bellnier, 43 F. Supp. 3d 214 (E.D.N.Y. 2014).published
    (joinder must “actually” render trial fundamentally unfair before habeas relief is appropriate)
  • Rolling v. Fischer, 433 F. Supp. 2d 336 (S.D.N.Y. 2006).published 3 cites
    It is well-established that joinder of offenses “rises to the level of a constitutional violation only if it ‘actually render[s] petitioner’s state trial fundamentally unfair and hence, violative of due process.’ ” Herring v. Meachum, 11 F…
  • Shand v. Miller, 412 F. Supp. 2d 267 (W.D.N.Y. 2006).published 2 cites
    Rather, erroneous joinder violates the constitution “only if it results in prejudice so great as to deny a defendant his Fifth Amendment right to a fair trial.” Id.; see also Herring v. Meachum, 11 F.3d 374, 377 (2d Cir.1993) (collateral r…
  • Mullins v. Bennett, 408 F. Supp. 2d 160 (W.D.N.Y. 2006).published 2 cites
    “Joinder of offenses rises to the level of a constitutional violation only if it actually render[s] petitioner’s state trial fundamentally unfair and hence, violative of due process.” Herring v. Meachum, 11 F.3d 374, 377 (2d Cir.1993) (quo…
  • Lee v. Ricks, 388 F. Supp. 2d 141 (W.D.N.Y. 2005).published
    “Joinder of offenses rises to the level of a constitutional violation only if it actually render[s] petitioner’s state trial fundamentally unfair and hence, violative of due process.” Herring v. Meachum, 11 F.3d 374, 377 (2d Cir.1993) (quo…
  • 98 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 9096, 98 Daily Journal D.A.R. 12,770 Anthony Cornell Bean, Petitioner-Appellee/cross-Appellant v. Arthur Calderon, Warden, Respondent-Appellant/cross-Appellee, 163 F.3d 1073 (9th Cir. 1998).published
    Out of respect for important notions of federalism, comity and finality, our review should be deferential to the state court findings. 98 As a general matter, "[t]he propriety of a consolidation rests within the sound discretion of the sta…
Show 18 more citing cases
  • Bean v. Calderon, 163 F.3d 1073 (9th Cir. 1998).published
    As a general matter, “[t]he propriety of a consolidation rests within the sound discretion of the state trial judge.” Featherstone v. Estelle, 948 F.2d 1497, 1503 (9th Cir.1989) (quoting Tribbitt v. Wainwright, 540 F.2d 840, 841 (5th Cir.1…
  • Davis v. Kelly, 2 F. Supp. 2d 362 (W.D.N.Y. 1998).published
    The Court stated, “joinder of offenses has long been recognized as a constitutionally acceptable accommodation of the defendant’s right to a fair trial.” Id. (quoting Tribbitt v. Wainwright, 540 F.2d 840, 841 (5th Cir.1976), cert. denied,…
  • Lucero v. Kerby, 133 F.3d 1299 (10th Cir. 1998).published
    In other words, to obtain habeas relief, petitioner must show the joinder of offenses “actually render[ed] petitioner’s state trial fundamentally unfair and hence, violative of due process.” Tribbitt v. Wainwright, 540 F.2d 840, 841 (5th C…
  • Reed v. Great Meadow Corr. Facility, 981 F. Supp. 184 (W.D.N.Y. 1997).published
    Rather, “joinder of offenses has long been recognized as a constitutionally acceptable accommodation of the defendant’s right to a fair trial.” Herring v. Meachum, 11 F.3d 374, 377 (2d Cir.1993), ce rt. denied, 511 U.S. 1059 , 114 S.Ct. 16…
  • Ronald Paul Foster v. K.W. Prunty, Chief Deputy Warden, 110 F.3d 68 (9th Cir. 1997).unpublished
    The simultaneous trial of more than one offense must actually render petitioner's state trial fundamentally unfair and hence, violative of due process before relief ... would be appropriate." Featherstone v. Estelle, 948 F.2d 1497, 1503 (9…
  • Richard Joseph Crane v. Rusty Snider, Warden Attorney Gen. of the State of California Daniel E. Lungren, 50 F.3d 13 (9th Cir. 1995).unpublished
    Sec. 2254 would be appropriate." Featherstone v. Estelle, 948 F.2d 1497, 1503 (9th Cir.1991), quoting Tribbitt v. Wainwright, 540 F.2d 840, 841 (5th Cir.1976), cert. denied, 430 U.S. 910 (1977). 14 The California Court of Appeal discussed…
  • Perry Lee Herring v. Larry R. Meachum, Comm'r of Corr., 11 F.3d 374 (2d Cir. 1993).published 2 cites
    Joinder of offenses rises to the level of a constitutional violation only if it “actually render[s] petitioner’s state trial fundamentally unfair and hence, violative of due process.” Tribbitt v. Wainwright, 540 F.2d 840, 841 (5th Cir.1976…
  • Quinones v. Meachum, 811 F. Supp. 776 (D. Conn. 1991).published
    As the Fifth Circuit observed in Manning v. Warden, Louisiana State Penitentiary, 786 F.2d 710, 711 (5th Cir.1986), in an identical context, both parties “miss the point when they argue about [state] law.” As that same court ruled fifteen…
  • Garry Vincent Featherstone v. Wayne E. Estelle, Warden, 948 F.2d 1497 (9th Cir. 1991).published
    Tribbitt v. Wainwright, 540 F.2d 840, 841 (5th Cir.1976), cert. denied, 430 U.S. 910 , 97 S.Ct. 1184 , 51 L.Ed.2d 587 (1977).
  • Aponte v. Scully, 740 F. Supp. 153 (E.D.N.Y. 1990).published
    Alejandro, 529 F.Supp. at 651 (citing Tribbitt v. Wainwright, 540 F.2d 840, 841 (5th Cir.1976), cert. denied, 430 U.S. 910 , 97 S.Ct. 1184 , 51 L.Ed.2d 587 (1977)); Melchior v. Jago, 723 F.2d 486, 491 (6th Cir.1983), cert. denied, 466 U.S.…
  • Howard R. Willard v. Linley Pearson, Attorney Gen., Indiana, & Raymond J. Lippman, Warden, United States Penitentiary, Terre Haute, Indiana, 823 F.2d 1141 (7th Cir. 1987).published
    Tribbitt v. Wainwright, 540 F.2d 840, 841 (5th Cir.1976), cert. denied, 430 U.S. 910 , 97 S.Ct. 1184 , 51 L.Ed.2d 587 (1977).
  • Albert Breeland v. Frank Blackburn, Warden, Louisiana State Penitentiary, 786 F.2d 1239 (5th Cir. 1986).published
    Tribbitt v. Wainwright, 540 F.2d 840, 841 (5th Cir.1976), ce rt. denied, 430 U.S. 910 , 97 S.Ct. 1184 , 51 L.Ed.2d 587 (1977).
  • Alejandro v. Scully, 529 F. Supp. 650 (S.D.N.Y. 1982).published
    Tribbitt v. Wainwright, 540 F.2d 840, 841 (5th Cir. 1976), cert. denied, 430 U.S. 910 , 97 S.Ct. 1184 , 51 L.Ed.2d 587 (1977); accord, Bronstein v. Wainwright, 646 F.2d 1048, 1050-51 (5th Cir. 1981); Corbett v. Bordenkircher, 615 F.2d 722,…
  • Hernandez v. Conway, 485 F. Supp. 2d 266 (W.D.N.Y. 2007).published 2 cites
    See id.
  • Holmes v. Scully, 706 F. Supp. 195 (E.D.N.Y. 1989).published 2 cites
    See Tribbitt v. Wainwright, 540 F.2d 840, 841 (5th Cir.1976), cert. denied, 430 U.S. 910 , 97 S.Ct. 1184 , 51 L.Ed.2d 587 (1977); Procter v. Butler, 831 F.2d 1251, 1256-57 (5th Cir.1987), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 109 S.Ct. 219 , 102 L.Ed.2d…
  • Dearstyne v. Mazzuca, 48 F. Supp. 3d 222 (N.D.N.Y. 2011).published
    Thus, erroneous joinder of offenses violates the Constitution “only if it results in prejudice so great as to deny a defendant his Fifth Amendment right to a fair trial.” Lane, 474 U.S. at 446 , 106 S.Ct. 725 ; see also Herring, 11 F.3d at…
  • Richard E. Harris v. Ernest C. Roe, Warden Attorney Gen. of the State of California, 127 F.3d 1105 (9th Cir. 1997).unpublished
    See Featherstone v. Estelle, 948 F.2d 1497, 1503 (9th Cir.1991); see also Tribbitt v. Wainwright, 540 F.2d 840, 841 (5th Cir.1976).
  • McKinley Robinson v. Donald Wyrick, 735 F.2d 1091 (8th Cir. 1984).published
Other citing cases1 with no pin cite or quoted language on record
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Sylvester TRIBBITT, Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
Louie L. WAINWRIGHT, Secretary, Department of Offender Rehabilitation, Respondent-Appellee
76-2091.
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
Oct 18, 1976.
Published opinion
540 F.2d 840
1976 U.S. App. LEXIS 6634
Wayne J. Boyer, Clearwater, Fla. (Court-appointed), for petitioner-appellant., Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, Fla., Richard G. Pippinger, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, Fla., for respondent-appellee.
Brown, Gew-In, Morgan, Per Curiam.
Cited by 34 opinions  |  Published
PER CURIAM:

On September 6, 1968, Appellant, Sylvester Tribbitt, was charged by information with the crimes of assault with intent to commit rape and robbery. After pleading not guilty as to both charges, appellant was tried by a jury and found guilty as charged of both offenses. Appellant was sentenced to the state penitentiary for twenty years upon the charge of assault with intent to commit rape and ten years, to run consecutive, upon the charge of robbery.

After exhaustion of state remedies, appellant filed his petition for writ of habeas corpus which was denied by the district court.

Appellant contends that the trial court erred in joining the felony of robbery and the felony of assault with intent to commit rape in one jury trial. The lower court specifically recognized that the crimes which are the subject of this point on appeal rose from the same criminal transaction. That court further determined that the crimes were perpetrated at or about the same time, and were directed at a single victim. The lower court went on to hold[*841] that a single trial on both offenses was not an unfair one. Appellant has suggested no compelling arguments to disturb the above conclusion. The propriety of a consolidation rests within the sound discretion of the state trial judge. The simultaneous trial of more than one offense must actually render petitioner’s state trial fundamentally unfair and hence, violative of due process before relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 would be appropriate.

Respondent supplied the lower court with a complete transcript of petitioner’s trial in state court. A review of that transcript clearly indicates that both the assault with intent to commit rape charge and the robbery charge arose out of the same criminal episode. To give the finder of fact the complete picture of what transpired, evidence of each offense would have been technically admissible at the trial of the other offense. Consequently, there is no-indication that the fact finding process was impermissibly tainted at petitioner’s state trial by the consolidation of these charges.

The decision of the district court is affirmed.

AFFIRMED.