Biddle v. Hall
| Decision Date | 08 November 1926 |
| Docket Number | No. 7216.,7216. |
| Citation | 15 F.2d 840 |
| Parties | BIDDLE, Warden, etc., v. HALL. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit |
Alton H. Skinner, Asst. U. S. Atty., of Topeka, Kan. (Al. F. Williams, U. S. Atty, of Topeka, Kan., on the brief), for appellant.
Before STONE and LEWIS, Circuit Judges, and SYMES, District Judge.
This is a proceeding in habeas corpus. Appellee's petition for the writ shows that on May 16, 1924, he was sentenced by the District Court for the District of Wyoming, on his pleas of guilty to two indictments there pending as cases Nos. 2198 and 2199, to terms of confinement in the penitentiary at Leavenworth, of a year and a day in each case; and he alleged that he had served the terms imposed and was being unlawfully held in custody by the warden. Appellant challenged the sufficiency of the petition by demurrer which was overruled, and he declined to plead further. The court then ordered that the writ issue and that appellee be discharged.
The point in the case is whether the two sentences are cumulative or concurrent. A copy of each sentence is made an exhibit and part of the petition by reference. In Case No. 2198 the sentence is this: that Robert Weaver Hall be confined in the United States Penitentiary at Leavenworth, Kansas, "for the period of one (1) year and one (1) day from this date, this sentence not to run concurrently with sentence in No. 2199 Criminal"; and in Case No. 2199 it is this: that Robert Weaver Hall be confined in the United States Penitentiary at Leavenworth, Kansas, "for the period of one (1) year and one (1) day from this date, this sentence not to run concurrent with sentence in No. 2198 Criminal."
It is a well-settled principle of criminal law that —
"Where defendant is found guilty of more than one offense, if the court desires to have imprisonment under one sentence commence at the expiration of another, the sentence must so state, or else the two terms of imprisonment will run concurrently, and defendant will be discharged at the expiration of the longest term." 16 C. J. p. 1307; 25 Am. & Eng. Ency. of Law (2d Ed.) pp. 307, 308, 309; 19 Ency. of Pl. & Pr. p. 484; Kirkman v. McClaughry (C. C.) 152 F. 255, 258; Id., 160 F. 436, 90 C. C. A. 86. A great many cases supporting the rule are referred to in the above citations.
It is also a well settled rule in criminal law that a sentence must be certain, definite and consistent in all its terms, and not ambiguous. 16 C. J. p. 1303; 19 Ency. Pl. & Pr. p. 476. Each sentence imposed confinement for one year and one day from May 16, 1924, and neither expressly provided that the terms should be served consecutively. It is impossible to reconcile the provision in each sentence, that the term began on the day thereof, with the succeeding clause, that the sentence in each case was not to run concurrently with the sentence in the other; nor is...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Buie v. King, 304.
...Aderhold v. McCarthy, 5 Cir., 65 F.2d 452; United States v. Remus, 6 Cir., 12 F.2d 239; Odekirk v. Ryan, 6 Cir., 85 F.2d 313; Biddle v. Hall, 8 Cir., 15 F.2d 840; Buessel v. United States, 2 Cir., 258 F. The District Court, however, gave consideration to the opinion of the Court of Appeals ......
-
Wilson v. Bell, 9422.
...had been served and that "there had been due allowance made for good behavior in accordance with the rule laid down in Biddle, Warden, v. Hall 8 Cir., 15 F.2d 840"; and alleged that District Judge St. Sure of Northern California possessed no jurisdiction "to overrule the judgment and correc......
-
Wall v. Hudspeth
...served in the penitentiary of the state. A sentence must be reasonably definite, certain and consistent in all its provisions. Biddle v. Hall, 8 Cir., 15 F.2d 840. It should disclose on its face with fair certainty the intent of the court, but the elimination of every conceivable doubt is n......
-
Crump v. State, s. 54515
...to begin at the conclusion of the previous life sentences and the 75-year sentence in No. C--4013. Appellant's cited cases of Biddle v. Hall, 8 Cir., 15 F.2d 840; United States ex rel. Chasteen v. Denemark, 7 Cir., 138 F.2d 289; Hode v. Sanford, 5 Cir., 101 F.2d 290; and Hogan v. Hill, D.C.......