Camp v. U.S., No. 78-1406

CourtUnited States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (8th Circuit)
Writing for the CourtBefore ROSS and McMILLIAN; LARSON
Citation587 F.2d 397
PartiesDwight Arnold CAMP, Appellee, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellant.
Docket NumberNo. 78-1406
Decision Date01 December 1978

Page 397

587 F.2d 397
Dwight Arnold CAMP, Appellee,
v.
UNITED STATES of America, Appellant.
No. 78-1406.
United States Court of Appeals,
Eighth Circuit.
Submitted Oct. 17, 1978.
Decided Dec. 1, 1978.

Henry E. Davis, Atty., Sp. Litigation Section, Crim. Div., Dept. of Justice, Washington, D. C., for appellant; John C. Keeney, Acting Asst. Atty. Gen., and George W. Calhoun, Washington, D. C., on the briefs.

Page 398

Robert T. Dawson, Hardin, Jesson & Dawson, Fort Smith, Ark., for appellee.

Before ROSS and McMILLIAN, Circuit Judges, and LARSON, * Senior District Judge.

LARSON, Senior District Judge.

This is an appeal from an Order of the District Court for the Western District of Arkansas 1 vacating petitioner's sentence and conviction because of the Government's violation of Article IV(e) of the Interstate Agreement on Detainers (hereinafter "IAD"), 18 U.S.C.App. § 2. 2 The District Court stayed its Order pending this appeal. We reverse and remand with instructions to reinstate petitioner's conviction.

Petitioner Camp was convicted of robbery in June 1973 in an Arkansas state court and was sentenced to ten years. In August 1973, while in the custody of the Arkansas Department of Correction, petitioner was indicted in the Western District of Arkansas on charges of robbing a post office, 18 U.S.C. § 2114. A detainer based on that indictment was lodged with the Arkansas Department of Correction. Subsequently, a writ of habeas corpus Ad prosequendum was issued, requiring the United States Marshal to produce petitioner in the District Court for the Western District of Arkansas on September 14, 1973. Petitioner was transferred to Federal custody on that date and on September 17, 1973, entered a plea of not guilty. He was thereafter returned to State custody.

On November 5, 1973, petitioner was again transferred from State to Federal custody pursuant to a writ of habeas corpus Ad prosequendum to stand trial. At that time he withdrew his plea of not guilty and entered a guilty plea. He was returned to State custody on November 7, 1973. On November 28, 1973, the District Court issued a third writ of habeas corpus Ad prosequendum to produce the petitioner for sentencing on December 7, 1973. On that date petitioner was sentenced to a term of twenty-five years under the provisions of 18 U.S.C. § 4208(a)(1), with five years fixed as the time after which petitioner could become eligible for parole. Petitioner was then returned to the Arkansas Department of Correction to complete service of his State sentence.

More than three years later, on January 10, 1977, petitioner through counsel filed a motion to vacate sentence and judgment of conviction in the Western District of Arkansas. Although no jurisdictional basis for the motion was stated, the motion was apparently made pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. As grounds for the relief requested, petitioner alleged that the Federal Government had violated the IAD by taking him into Federal custody and returning him to State custody without having brought him to trial. The District Court filed its Order vacating petitioner's sentence and conviction on May 1, 1978, and this appeal followed.

Between the time the appeal was noticed and the time it was heard, one other event of arguable significance for purposes of this case transpired. On May 23, 1978, the United States Supreme Court handed down its decision in United States v. Mauro, 436 U.S. 340, 98 S.Ct. 1834, 56 L.Ed.2d 329 (1978). In that decision, the Supreme Court for the first time held explicitly that the use of a writ of habeas corpus Ad prosequendum to secure the presence of a State prisoner in Federal court would trigger the provisions of the IAD where a detainer had previously been lodged against the prisoner.

The United States advances three arguments on appeal in support of its contention

Page 399

that the Order of the District Court vacating petitioner's conviction should be overturned and the conviction reinstated. The Government contends, first, that petitioner's plea of guilty waived any claims with respect to a violation of the IAD; second, that a violation of Article IV of the IAD is not cognizable in any event under 28 U.S.C. § 2255; and, third, that the Supreme Court's holding in U. S. v. Mauro, supra, represents a change in the law previously applied in this Circuit and, as such, Mauro should not be applied retroactively. 3 Because we find the Government's first argument to be dispositive, we need not consider the other two.

It is well settled that a valid guilty plea operates as a waiver of all non-jurisdictional defects or...

To continue reading

Request your trial
70 practice notes
  • Henretty v. Jones, Case No.: 3:14cv177/LAC/EMT
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 11th Circuit. United States District Courts. 11th Circuit. Northern District of Florida
    • November 12, 2015
    ...519, 72 S. Ct. 509, 96 L. Ed. 541 (1952), Lascelles v. Georgia, 148 U.S. 537, 13 S. Ct. 687, 37 L. Ed. 549 (1893); Camp v. United States, 587 F.2d 397 (8th Cir. 1978)). Further, as the state court found, Petitioner was not brought to trial pursuant to the IADA on the charges in this case; t......
  • United States v. Aossey, No. 14-CR-138-LRR
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 8th Circuit. Northern District of Iowa
    • August 25, 2015
    ...of the United States," and a defective indictment "does not affect the jurisdiction of the trial court"); see also Camp v. United States, 587 F.2d 397, 399 (8th Cir. 1978) (noting that jurisdictional questions revolve around the "type of case" only, and that while "it is conceivable" that t......
  • People v. Smith, Docket No. 89414
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Michigan
    • September 23, 1991
    ...3097, 57 L.Ed.2d 1138 (1978) (the IAD constitutes a set of procedural rules; violation is waived by a guilty plea); Camp v. United States, 587 F.2d 397 (C.A.8, 1978) (violation of the IAD is nonjurisdictional error, waivable by a criminal defendant); Beachem v. Missouri Attorney General, 80......
  • Pethel v. McBride, No. 32784.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of West Virginia
    • June 8, 2006
    ...sub nom, 512 U.S. 339, 114 S.Ct. 2291, 129 L.Ed.2d 277 (1994), (IAD procedures are not constitutional rights); Camp v. United States, 587 F.2d 397, 400 (8th Cir. 1978) ("the IAD amounts to nothing more than a statutory set of procedural rules which clearly do not give rise to the level of c......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
70 cases
  • Henretty v. Jones, Case No.: 3:14cv177/LAC/EMT
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 11th Circuit. United States District Courts. 11th Circuit. Northern District of Florida
    • November 12, 2015
    ...519, 72 S. Ct. 509, 96 L. Ed. 541 (1952), Lascelles v. Georgia, 148 U.S. 537, 13 S. Ct. 687, 37 L. Ed. 549 (1893); Camp v. United States, 587 F.2d 397 (8th Cir. 1978)). Further, as the state court found, Petitioner was not brought to trial pursuant to the IADA on the charges in this case; t......
  • United States v. Aossey, No. 14-CR-138-LRR
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 8th Circuit. Northern District of Iowa
    • August 25, 2015
    ...of the United States," and a defective indictment "does not affect the jurisdiction of the trial court"); see also Camp v. United States, 587 F.2d 397, 399 (8th Cir. 1978) (noting that jurisdictional questions revolve around the "type of case" only, and that while "it is conceivable" that t......
  • People v. Smith, Docket No. 89414
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Michigan
    • September 23, 1991
    ...3097, 57 L.Ed.2d 1138 (1978) (the IAD constitutes a set of procedural rules; violation is waived by a guilty plea); Camp v. United States, 587 F.2d 397 (C.A.8, 1978) (violation of the IAD is nonjurisdictional error, waivable by a criminal defendant); Beachem v. Missouri Attorney General, 80......
  • Pethel v. McBride, No. 32784.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of West Virginia
    • June 8, 2006
    ...sub nom, 512 U.S. 339, 114 S.Ct. 2291, 129 L.Ed.2d 277 (1994), (IAD procedures are not constitutional rights); Camp v. United States, 587 F.2d 397, 400 (8th Cir. 1978) ("the IAD amounts to nothing more than a statutory set of procedural rules which clearly do not give rise to the level of c......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT