Evans v. Hunter, 3474.
| Decision Date | 14 July 1947 |
| Docket Number | No. 3474.,3474. |
| Parties | EVANS v. HUNTER. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Tenth Circuit |
Victor J. Evans, pro se.
Eugene W. Davis, Asst. U. S. Atty., of Topeka, Kan. (Randolph Carpenter, U. S. Atty., of Topeka, Kan., on the brief), for appellee.
Before PHILLIPS, BRATTON, and MURRAH, Circuit Judges.
This is an appeal from an order discharging a writ of habeas corpus.
On November 21, 1934, Evans was convicted in the District Court of the United States for the Southern District of Florida on an indictment charging violations of 18 U.S.C.A. § 338. The indictment charged that the offenses were committed in 1934. He was sentenced to imprisonment for a term of five years, and was committed to the United States Penitentiary at Atlanta, Georgia. Under the Act of June 21, 1902, 18 U.S.C.A. § 710, he was credited with 480 days for good conduct and was released on July 28, 1938.
The Act of June 29, 1932, 47 Stat. 381, 18 U.S.C.A. §§ 716a and 716b provide:
The Act of May 13, 1930, as amended by the Act of June 29, 1940, 18 U.S.C.A. § 723c, provides that the Board of Parole, or any member thereof, shall have the exclusive authority to issue warrants for the retaking of any United States prisoner who has violated his parole; that the unexpired term of imprisonment of such prisoner shall begin to run from the date of his return to custody of the Attorney General under such warrant; and that the time such prisoner was on parole shall not diminish the time he was originally sentenced to serve.
Section 6 of the Act of June 25, 1910, as amended by § 3 of the Act of June 29, 1940, 18 U.S.C.A. § 719, provides that when a prisoner has been retaken upon a warrant issued by the Board of Parole, he shall be given an opportunity to appear before the Board of Parole, a member thereof, or an examiner, designated by the Board, and that such Board may then, or at any time within its discretion, revoke the order of parole and terminate such parole, and that if such order of parole shall be revoked and the parole terminated, the prisoner shall serve the remainder of the sentence originally imposed, and that the time such prisoner was out on parole shall not be taken into account to diminish the time for which he was sentenced. Section 719, supra, as originally enacted, provided that the time such prisoner was on parole should not diminish the time he was originally sentenced to serve. See 36 Stat. p. 820.
On September 22, 1938, before the expiration of the five-year sentence, a member of the Board of Parole issued a warrant which recited that reliable information had been presented to him that petitioner had violated the terms of his parole, and which directed that petitioner be arrested and returned to the United States Penitentiary at Atlanta, Georgia. However, before the warrant was served, petitioner was arrested in the Northern District of Ohio on an indictment charging violations of 18 U.S.C.A. § 338. He was tried and convicted on such indictment and sentenced to imprisonment for a term of 10 years, and was committed to the United States Penitentiary at Leavenworth, Kansas. With deductions for good conduct, he became eligible for release under the second sentence on July 14, 1946. On that date, the warrant referred to above was served and he was held in custody to serve the unserved portion of 480 days of the first sentence.
On August 14, 1946, petitioner filed an application for a writ of habeas corpus. After a hearing, the trial court discharged the writ and remanded petitioner to the custody of the warden.
At the hearing below, petitioner, through his counsel, announced that there were no issues of fact, and stated that the sole grounds upon which petitioner sought relief were that § 716b, supra, is in conflict with § 710, supra, and is unconstitutional, and that the Board of Parole was without jurisdiction to issue the warrant and order petitioner to serve the unserved portion of his first sentence. He expressly abandoned all other grounds set up in the application for the writ.
The trial court found that the ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Woods v. Steiner
...S.Ct. 1604, 4 L.Ed.2d 1525; O'Neal v. Fleming, 201 F.2d 665 (4th Cir. 1953); Hall v. Welch, 185 F.2d 525 (4th Cir. 1950); Evans v. Hunter, 162 F.2d 800 (10th Cir. 1947), certiorari denied 332 U.S. 818, 68 S.Ct. 144, 92 L.Ed. 395; Chandler v. Johnston, 133 F.2d 139 (9th Cir. 1943); Story v. ......
-
United States v. Buono
...1604, 4 L.Ed.2d 1525 (1960); O'Neal v. Fleming, 201 F.2d 665 (4th Cir. 1953); Hall v. Welch, 185 F.2d 525 (4th Cir. 1950); Evans v. Hunter, 162 F.2d 800 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 332 U.S. 818, 68 S.Ct. 144, 92 L.Ed. 395 (1947); Chandler v. Johnston, 133 F.2d 139 (9th Cir. 1943); Story v. R......
-
Van Buskirk v. Wilkinson
...Story v. Rives, 68 App.D.C. 325, 97 F.2d 182; Dolan v. Swope, 7 Cir., 138 F.2d 301; Voorhees v. Cox, 8 Cir., 140 F.2d 132; Evans v. Hunter, 10 Cir., 162 F.2d 800; Hall v. Welch, 4 Cir., 185 F.2d 525; and O'Neal v. Fleming, 4 Cir., 201 F.2d 665. Each of the cited cases involved conditional r......
-
Douglas v. Sigler
...and parole statutes are accorded similar treatment and are considered as resting upon the same legislative basis. Evans v. Hunter, 162 F.2d 800 (10 Cir. 1947), cert. denied 332 U.S. 818, 68 S.Ct. 144, 92 L.Ed. 395, recognized the constitutionality of the federal good-time release statute th......