Gardner v. United States
| Decision Date | 02 February 1960 |
| Docket Number | No. 18057.,18057. |
| Citation | 274 F.2d 380 |
| Parties | William Earl GARDNER, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, and/or Fred T. Wilkinson, Warden, United States Penitentiary, Atlanta, Georgia, Appellees. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
William Earl Gardner, in pro. per., for appellant.
Charles D. Read, Jr., U. S. Atty., E. Ralph Ivey, Asst. U. S. Atty., Atlanta, Ga., for appellees.
Before RIVES, Chief Judge, and JONES and BROWN, Circuit Judges.
The appellant, while serving a term of imprisonment under a state court conviction, was convicted of a federal offense in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of South Carolina, and by that court he was sentenced to imprisonment for a year "to begin at the completion of service of sentence now being served in the South Carolina penitentiary." While in the South Carolina penitentiary he twice attempted to escape and for so doing he was given two sentences of six months each to run consecutively. The appellant served his time for the sentence he was under when convicted in the federal court and also served the two sentences of six months which had been subsequently imposed. He was taken to the Federal Penitentiary at Atlanta, Georgia, to serve out the sentence imposed by the federal court. He contends that a year has expired since he finished serving the state court sentence he was under at the time of his federal conviction. Therefore, he says, the term of his federal sentence has expired and he is entitled to his freedom. This claim he undertook to vindicate by bringing a habeas corpus proceeding in the Northern District of Georgia. The district court dismissed the petition and this appeal is from the order of dismissal.
The district court was of the opinion that the relief claimed by the appellant could be obtained, if at all, only by a proceeding under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255. Habeas corpus was not an available remedy, so the district court believed, and dismissed the petition. We are not in agreement with this view. The appellant does not assert that there was any error in the proceeding which culminated in the sentence of the federal court in South Carolina. He does not attack the sentence or ask to be relieved of any part of it. His claim is, simply stated, that the term of his sentence has expired and his further detention is unlawful. If his legal premise that the term of his imprisonment has come to an end is sound, we are of the belief that his demand for...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Thompson v. WARDEN-EL RENO, OKLAHOMA BOARD OF PAROLE, CIV-76-0304-D.
...is not attacking the judgment of conviction and sentence. United States v. Marchese, 341 F.2d 782 (CA10 1965). See also Gardner v. United States, 274 F.2d 380 (CA5 1960). A Motion pursuant to Section 2255 may not be invoked for matters occurring subsequent to the judgment. United States v. ......
-
Todd v. Wilson, Civ. A. No. 18037-3.
...This is true even though the prisoner is sentenced to, and serves, other terms of imprisonment while in state custody. Gardner v. United States (C.A.5) 274 F.2d 380; Harrell v. Shuttleworth (C.A.5) 200 F.2d 490. Further, although the federal authority may take a state parolee into custody f......
-
Birchfield v. United States
...on this record even though it might be assumed that they may be proper subjects for habeas corpus and not § 2255. Cf. Gardner v. United States, 5 Cir. 1960, 274 F.2d 380. But the third complaint is of great seriousness. It is the charge that petitioner's counsel was in a duplicitous positio......
-
Lamb v. Heritage, 19677.
...sentence was occasioned by appellant\'s own act and he must bear the consequences." See also this Court's decision in Gardner v. United States, 274 F.2d 380 (5 Cir., 1960). The judgment of the lower court Affirmed. ...