Aderhold v. Soileau, 6926.

• Decision Date: 24 October 1933
• Docket Number: No. 6926.,6926.
• Citation: Aderhold v. Soileau, 67 F.2d 259 (5th Cir. 1933)
• Parties: ADERHOLD, Warden, v. SOILEAU.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit

67 F.2d 259 (1933)

ADERHOLD, Warden, v. SOILEAU.

No. 6926.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

October 24, 1933.

Philip H. Mecom, U. S. Atty., and J. Fair Hardin, Asst. U. S. Atty., both of Shreveport, La., and Clint W. Hager, U. S. Atty., and Hal Lindsay, Asst. U. S. Atty., both of Atlanta, Ga., for appellant.

Before BRYAN, SIBLEY, and HUTCHESON, Circuit Judges.

SIBLEY, Circuit Judge.

Joseph Soileau was discharged on habeas corpus from serving a sentence for an escape on May 25, 1931, from a federal road camp in Virginia, where he was serving a sentence imposed in Louisiana which required his imprisonment in the United States Industrial Reformatory at Chilicothe, Ohio, "until he reaches the age of twenty-one years." It was successfully contended that the original sentence to imprisonment until he should reach the age of twenty-one years was so uncertain as to be void, and that imprisonment under it was illegal and escape from such imprisonment no crime under 18 USCA § 753 (h). The record contains a previous habeas corpus proceeding against Aderhold, warden, in which Soileau obtained a ruling from which no appeal was taken that the Louisiana sentence was too vague to be enforced and that Soileau be taken before the trial court to be resentenced. He was resentenced in Louisiana; the new sentence being made to run from the date of the old one. This sentence has been served, and that imposed for the escape alone remains.

The former habeas corpus proceeding has no conclusive effect here. Such proceedings when they result adversely to the applicant are not estoppels against him. Salinger v. Loisel, 265 U. S. 224, 230, 44 S. Ct. 519, 68 L. Ed. 989; Wong Doo v. United States, 265 U. S. 239, 44 S. Ct. 524, 68 L. Ed. 999. Estoppels being mutual, the proceedings cannot be given that effect where the applicant succeeds. But, were it otherwise, the judgment previously made between Soileau and Aderhold was not that the Louisiana sentence was so utterly void that Soileau ought to be forthwith released, but, on the contrary, it adjudged that he should be held for resentence. Yet further the United States were not party to that decision and were not bound by it and could and did thereafter prosecute Soileau for his escape and convicted him. It is under this solemn record of conviction that Aderhold now holds him, a right that came into being since the former judgment on habeas corpus.

The Virginia indictment for escape alleged that the imprisonment from which Soileau escaped was under a sentence requiring imprisonment "until he reaches twenty-one years of age."...