37 F.2d 858 (10th Cir. 1930), 116-1929, White v. Steigleder

Docket Nº:116-1929.
Citation:37 F.2d 858
Party Name:WHITE, Warden, v. STEIGLEDER.
Case Date:January 24, 1930
Court:United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit

Page 858

37 F.2d 858 (10th Cir. 1930)

WHITE, Warden,



No. 116-1929.

United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.

January 24, 1930

Page 859

Alton H. Skinner, Asst. U.S. Atty., of Topeka, Kan. (Al F. Williams, U.S. Atty., of Topeka, Kan., on the brief), for appellant.

Charles A. Coakley, of Tulsa, Okl. (Walter I. Biddle, of Leavenworth, Kan., C. B. Stuart, of Oklahoma City, Okl., and E. J. Doerner, of Tulsa, Okl., on the brief), for appellee.

Before LEWIS, COTTERAL, and PHILLIPS, Circuit Judges.

COTTERAL, Circuit Judge.

This appeal is brought by appellant as warden of the penitentiary at Leavenworth, Kan., to obtain a reversal of an order of the District Court for Kansas, granting to the appellee a writ of habeas corpus for his discharge, subject to terms of probation.

The appellee was convicted on eight counts of an indictment for violations of the National Banking Act in the Northern District of Oklahoma. He was there sentenced to serve a term of one year and a day and pay a fine of $2,500 on the first count. He was further sentenced to serve a term of five years and pay a fine of $100 on each of the other counts, the sentences to run concurrently and begin at the expiration of sentence on the first count. The convictions were affirmed on appeal. Steigleder v. United States (C.C.A.) 25 F.2d 959. Thereafter, at a hearing of defendant's application for probation, it was ordered that a commitment be issued for service of the sentence by the defendant on the first count of the indictment, and probation was granted for his release on the other counts, until further order and during good behavior.

His petition for the writ of habeas corpus which he filed in the District Court for Kansas recites he had served the sentence required on the first count of the indictment and an additional 30 days on account of the fine therein imposed, and is entitled to a discharge by virtue of the probation order applicable to the other counts. The warden moved to dismiss the cause and deny the discharge for want of jurisdiction in the Oklahoma District Court to suspend execution of any part of the original sentence. The case was heard, and, the warden electing to stand on his motion, appellee was discharged, subject to the probation terms.

It is contended the appellee had fully served the sentence and was exonerated from the fine imposed under the...

To continue reading