Cephus v. United States, 20926.

Citation128 US App. DC 366,389 F.2d 317
Decision Date23 October 1967
Docket NumberNo. 20926.,20926.
PartiesEarl R. CEPHUS, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit

Mr. James VanR. Springer, Washington, D. C. (appointed by this court), for appellant.

Mr. Lee A. Freeman, Jr., Asst. U. S. Atty., with whom Messrs. David G. Bress, U. S. Atty., Frank Q. Nebeker and Victor W. Caputy, Asst. U. S. Attys., were on the brief, for appellee.

Before WILBUR K. MILLER, Senior Circuit Judge, and BURGER and WRIGHT, Circuit Judges.

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

This case came on to be heard on the record on appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, and was argued by counsel.

It appearing that pursuant to this Court's decision in Cephus v. United States, 122 U.S.App.D.C. 187, 188 n. 1, 352 F.2d 663, 664 n. 1 (1965), cert. denied, 384 U.S. 1012, 86 S.Ct. 1956, 16 L.Ed.2d 1031 (1966), Appellant has received credit for jail custody "for want of bail," under then existing 18 U.S.C. § 3568 (1964), see Stapf v. United States, 125 U.S.App.D.C. 100, 367 F.2d 326 (1966);

It further appearing that the commitment, in the circumstances of this case, to St. Elizabeths Hospital (from a non-bail confinement in the District of Columbia Jail) for a mental examination upon Appellant's motion, should be treated in the same manner, for purposes of credit, as the confinement in the District of Columbia Jail pending trial; Stapf v. United States, supra;

It further appearing that Appellant's election not to commence service of sentence pending appeal under then-existing FED.R.CRIM.P. 38(a) (2) was voluntary and was made with full knowledge of the consequences, including an express statement on the form that no credit would be given if the election were made, compare Williams v. United States, D.C.Cir. No. 18,399 (1964) (unreported); Bolden v. Clemmer, 235 F.Supp. 832 (E.D.Va.1964);

It further appearing that the supervening change in FED.R.CRIM.P. 38(a) (2) operates prospectively only from the date of the amendment; it is

Ordered that the judgment appealed from is in all respects, hereby affirmed, except insofar as it denied Appellant credit for the time spent in St. Elizabeths Hospital and without prejudice to Appellant seeking consideration by the Department of Corrections, giving "heed to the spirit of the remedial amendment to Rule 38 FED.R.CRIM.P. 38(a) (2)." McCoy v. United States, 125 U.S.App....

To continue reading

Request your trial
14 cases
  • U.S. v. DeBellis
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — First Circuit
    • 21 Abril 1981
    ...with the offense or acts for which sentence was imposed", and we think appellant's time served so qualifies. See Cephus v. United States, 389 F.2d 317 (D.C.Cir.1967); Sawyer v. Clark, 386 F.2d 633 (D.C.Cir.1967); but see Makal v. State of Arizona, 544 F.2d 1030, 1035 (9th Cir. 1976). At the......
  • Frye v. Moran
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Western District of Texas
    • 3 Febrero 1969
    ...sentenced under § 5010 (b).). 16 While the recent amendments to Rule 38 do not apply to this petitioner; Cephus v. United States, 128 U.S.App. D.C. 366, 389 F.2d 317 (1967); United States v. Lawrenson, 383 F.2d 77 (4th Cir. 1967); they would not change the result here reached. Admittance to......
  • State v. Lee
    • United States
    • New Jersey Supreme Court
    • 17 Enero 1972
    ...a state hospital' between his arrest and the imposition of sentence. R. 3:21--8; Cf. 18 U.S.C.A. § 3568 (1968); Cephus v. United States, 128 U.S.App.D.C. 366, 389 F.2d 317 (1967); Sawyer v. Clark, 128 U.S.App.D.C. 206, 386 F.2d 633 (1966); see also Culp v. Bounds, 325 F.Supp. 416 (W.D.N.C.1......
  • State v. La Badie
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of New Mexico
    • 2 Abril 1975
    ...in the statutory language, the following cases support crediting the State Hospital time on the sentence: Cephus v. United States, 122 U.S.App.D.C. 187, 389 F.2d 317 (1967); Sawyer v. Clark, 128 U.S.App.D.C. 206, 386 F.2d 633 (1967); People v. Cowasar, 40 Cal.App.3d 578, 115 Cal.Rptr. 160 (......
  • 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