Ashworth v. United States
| Decision Date | 20 March 1968 |
| Docket Number | No. 18168.,18168. |
| Citation | 391 F.2d 245 |
| Parties | Kenneth Owen ASHWORTH, Petitioner-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Respondent-Appellee. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit |
Kenneth Owens Ashworth, in pro. per.
J. H. Reddy, U. S. Atty., Robert E. Simpson, Asst. U. S. Atty., Knoxville, Tenn., for appellee on brief.
Before EDWARDS, CELEBREZZE, and McCREE, Circuit Judges.
This is an appeal from the denial by the District Court of Appellant's motion, under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, to vacate an allegedly illegal sentence.
On October 25, 1961, Appellant was convicted on a plea of guilty for the offense of transporting a stolen motor vehicle in interstate commerce, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2312. He was given credit for the 86 days which he had spent in jail awaiting trial, and, further jail sentence being suspended, he was placed on probation for a period of two years. On May 14, 1962, he was convicted of a felony in a Tennessee state court, and sentenced to 3 to 6 years in the state penitentiary. On August 10, 1966, following his release, he appeared in the District Court for violation of probation. His probation was continued for a period of one year. On April 14, 1967, Appellant was again taken into custody for violation of probation, and on May 8, his probation was revoked and he was sentenced to prison for a period of 18 months.
Appellant contends that the sentence of 18 months' imprisonment is illegal because: (1) his original sentence of probation continued to run while he was imprisoned in the state penitentiary, and had therefore been completed prior to his present imprisonment; (2) he was entitled to credit for the period between April 14, 1967 and May 8, 1967, which he spent in jail awaiting disposition of his probation violation; and (3) counsel was not appointed for him during the probation revocation proceedings.
We find the first two grounds to be without merit. During the period of Appellant's incarceration by the state, his federal probation period was tolled. United States v. Gerson, 302 F.2d 430 (6th Cir. 1962). Even if the 1966 amendment to 18 U.S.C. § 3568, concerning the crediting of jail time, were held to be applicable to this case, we would presume, by virtue of the fact that a less-than-maximum sentence had been imposed, that Appellant had been given credit for the period of April 14-May 8. See Stapf v. United States, 125 U.S.App. D.C. 100, 367 F.2d 326 (1966); Dunn v. United States, 376 F.2d 191 (4th Cir. 1967).
We hold, however, that the third ground advanced by Appellant requires vacation of his sentence. In Mempa v....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Menechino v. Oswald
...389 U.S. at 135, 88 S.Ct. at 257. Cf. Hewett v. North Carolina, 415 F.2d 1316, 1322 (4th Cir. 1969), and Ashworth v. United States, 391 F.2d 245 (6th Cir. 1968) (per curiam), both holding that because of Mempa, counsel is now required at revocation of probation proceedings. See also Cohen, ......
-
People ex rel. Menechino v. Warden, Green Haven State Prison
...we are persuaded--as other courts have been (see, e.g., Hewett v. North Carolina, 4 Cir., 415 F.2d 1316, 1322--1323; Ashworth v. United States, 6 Cir., 391 F.2d 245, 246)--that it may not be limited to its narrow factual content. The principle which underlies the decision in Mempa is suffic......
-
Knight v. State
...cases applied Mempa and reversed the judgment but in each sentence was imposed at the revocation hearing: Ashworth v. United States, 391 F.2d 245 (U.S.C.A. 6th Cir. 1968); State v. Seymour, 98 N.J.Super 526, 237 A.2d 900 (N.L.1968); Nebraska v. Holiday, 182 Neb. 410, 155 N.W.2d 378 (1968); ......
-
State ex rel. Strickland v. Melton
...to twenty years under the indictment for forcible rape. Mempa v. Rhay, 389 U.S. 128, 88 S.Ct. 254, 19 L.Ed.2d 336; Ashworth v. United States, 391 F.2d 245 (6th cir.); Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335, 83 S.Ct. 792, 9 L.Ed.2d 799, 93 A.L.R.2d 733; Hamilton v. Alabama, 368 U.S. 52, 83 S.Ct.......