Bracey v. Hill, 68.
| Decision Date | 29 June 1935 |
| Docket Number | No. 68.,68. |
| Parties | BRACEY v. HILL. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Pennsylvania |
Jack Bracey, in pro. per.
Herman F. Reich, Asst. U. S. Atty., of Sunbury, Pa., for respondent.
This case comes before the court on a petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed by Jack Bracey, an inmate of the United States Northeastern Penitentiary at Lewisburg, Pa.
The petitioner was indicted in the District of Columbia on November 30, 1932, for felonious assaults with dangerous weapons upon Marie C. Bracey. He pleaded guilty on December 16, 1932, and was sentenced on each of the five counts of the indictment. The sentences aggregated in all from eight to twelve years.
The petitioner's contentions that the indictment charges but one offense, that the trial court was without jurisdiction to impose sentence on more than one count of the indictment, that the petitioner was placed in double jeopardy, and that the sentence violates the Sentence and Parole Laws of the District of Columbia, were passed upon by this court and found to be without merit in the case of United States of America ex rel. Jack Bracey v. Henry C. Hill, Warden, No. 46 Habeas Corpus. On appeal, the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, 77 F.(2d) 970, in an opinion filed March 28, 1935, likewise held these contentions to be without merit.
The petitioner makes several additional contentions in this case. He contends that there is no law authorizing the imposition of consecutive sentences and that the sentences in this case run concurrently since no order of sequence is stated. The federal courts, without question, have the power to impose consecutive sentences. United States v. Solomon (C. C. A.) 70 F.(2d) 834; Eyler v. Aderhold (C. C. A.) 73 F.(2d) 372. The commitment shows that the petitioner was sentenced "for the period of 2 to 3 years on 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 4th counts to run consecutively (8 to 12 years in all). * * *" This sentence is clearly a consecutive one and is valid, although no order of service is prescribed. Such a sentence was held valid in the case of Rosso v. Aderhold, Warden, 67 F.(2d) 315, 316, where the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit said: "We regard as now established, at least as to several counts of the same indictment, the more sensible rule that where sentence is pronounced imposing at the same time several terms of imprisonment, and the language of the sentence makes it clear that the judge intended them to be served not concurrently, but consecutively, although no order of their service is prescribed, they will not be concurrent, but a sequence of service corresponding to the order of the counts will be implied."
The petitioner further contends that he was never legally committed to the United States Northeastern Penitentiary since he was tried, convicted, and sentenced in the District of Columbia, and under the Indeterminate Sentence and Parole Act of the District of Columbia of July 15, 1932 (D. C. Code Supp. I, 1933, T. 6, § 451 et seq.), he could not be legally committed to an institution outside of the District of Columbia. Prior to the passage of the Indeterminate Sentence and Parole Act, there was no question as to the power of the Attorney General to designate any federal penitentiary outside of the District of Columbia for prisoners convicted of felony in the District of Columbia. See 18 U. S. C. 697, 704, and 753f (18 USCA §§ 697, 704, 753f). With...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cosgrove v. Smith
...rejected, Aderhold v. Lee, 68 F.2d 824 (5th Cir.1934), but probably triggered an important amendment to the 1932 Act, see Bracey v. Hill, 11 F.Supp. 148, 149 (M.D.Pa.), aff'd, 77 F.2d 970 (3d Cir.1935). The amendment reads in pertinent District of Columbia facilities, 1932 Act Sec. 7, who w......
-
Story v. Rives
...Moreover, in Aderhold v. Lee, 5 Cir., 68 F.2d 824, certiorari denied 292 U.S. 633, 54 S.Ct. 718, 78 L.Ed. 1486, and Bracey v. Hill, D.C.M.D.Pa., 11 F.Supp. 148, affirmed, 3 Cir., 77 F.2d 970, the power of the Attorney General over the place of confinement of District of Columbia prisoners w......
-
Walker v. Luther, s. 730
...courts thought that Congress meant it to overrule Aderhold. See Johnson, 821 F.2d at 1284; Cosgrove, 697 F.2d at 1129; Bracey v. Hill, 11 F.Supp. 148, 149 (M.D.Pa.), aff'd, 77 F.2d 970 (3d Second, federally-housed D.C. offenders with indeterminate sentences were considered completely nonpar......
-
Cosgrove v. United States
...aff'd sub nom. Laaman v. Vitek, 502 F.2d 1158 (1st Cir. 1973) (granting of parole involves due process implications); Bracey v. Hill, 11 F.Supp. 148, 149 (M.D.Pa.1935) (persons incarcerated in federal or District of Columbia institutions must be accorded the same privileges of parole). Furt......