Carlson v. Hong, 82-4557
| Decision Date | 18 April 1983 |
| Docket Number | No. 82-4557,82-4557 |
| Citation | 707 F.2d 367 |
| Parties | Lawrence Frederick CARLSON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Tany S. HONG, Attorney General, State of Hawaii, Respondent-Appellee. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
Philip D. Bogetto, Honolulu, Hawaii, for petitioner-appellant.
Shirley Smith, Deputy Pros. Atty., Honolulu, Hawaii, for respondent-appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Hawaii.
Before BROWNING, Chief Judge, and WRIGHT and WALLACE, Circuit Judges.
The district court, 545 F.Supp. 352, ruled that a state prisoner is not entitled to section 2254 relief for a violation of article IV(e) of the Interstate Agreement on Detainers Act. To be cognizable under section 2254, an error must be " 'a fundamental defect which inherently results in a complete miscarriage of justice,' " and it must present " 'exceptional circumstances where the need for the remedy afforded by the writ of habeas corpus is apparent.' " Davis v. United States, 417 U.S. 333, 346, 94 S.Ct. 2298, 2305, 41 L.Ed.2d 109 (1974), quoting Hill v. United States, 368 U.S. 424, 82 S.Ct. 468, 7 L.Ed.2d 417 (1962). We have held that an article IV(e) violation does not rise to the required level of seriousness. Hitchcock v. United States, 580 F.2d 964 (9th Cir.1978).
Cody v. Morris, 623 F.2d 101 (9th Cir.1980), is not to the contrary. That case dealt with article IV(c), not article IV(e). Article IV(c) requires that the detainee be brought to trial within 120 days. This has its roots in the constitutional provision for speedy trial. There is no similar fundamental right under article IV(e).
AFFIRMED.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
US ex rel. Holleman v. Duckworth
...and adjudicative processes leading to criminal conviction and confinement." Id. at 409. Similar reasoning is found in Carlson v. Hong, 707 F.2d 367 (9th Cir.1983) (anti-shuttling); Hitchcock v. United States, 580 F.2d 964 (9th Cir.1978) (anti-shuttling). As an initial matter it should be no......
-
Reed v. Clark
...which parts of the IAD are "fundamental" and which are not. E.g., Cooney v. Fulcomer, 886 F.2d 41, 44 (3d Cir.1988); Carlson v. Hong, 707 F.2d 367, 368 (9th Cir.1983). Our circuit has not taken a position on this subject. We have recognized that the IAD is a law of the United States without......
-
Metheny v. Hamby
...F.2d 402 (4th Cir.1981), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 910, 102 S.Ct. 1259, 71 L.Ed.2d 449 (1982), and the Ninth Circuit in Carlson v. Hong, 707 F.2d 367, 368 (9th Cir.1983), but cf. Tinghitella v. California, 718 F.2d 308 (9th Cir.1983) (violation of IAD time provisions is a cognizable defect). I......
-
Childress v. State of Ohio
...Cir.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 867 (1980); Kerr v. Finkbeiner, 757 F.2d 604 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 929 (1985); Carlson v. Hong, 707 F.2d 367 (9th CIr.1983); Tinghitella v. California, 718 F.2d 308 (9th Cir.1983); Webb v. Keohane, 804 F.2d 413 (7th Cir.1986); Casper v. Ryan, 822 F......