Hagelberger v. United States, 71-1385 Summary Calendar.
Decision Date | 24 June 1971 |
Docket Number | No. 71-1385 Summary Calendar.,71-1385 Summary Calendar. |
Parties | Richard A. HAGELBERGER, Petitioner-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Respondent-Appellee. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
Richard A. Hagelberger, pro se.
John W. Stokes, Jr., U. S. Atty., Robert L. Smith, E. Ray Taylor, Jr., Asst. U. S. Attys., Atlanta, Ga., for appellee.
Before THORNBERRY, MORGAN and CLARK, Circuit Judges.
Richard A. Hagelberger, a federal prisoner, has taken this appeal from the district court's order denying him credit for certain time spent in custody prior to the date on which President Eisenhower commuted his death sentence. We affirm the order appealed, a copy of which is appended to this opinion, for the reasons stated therein.
Affirmed.
Appendix
United States District Court Northern District of Georgia Atlanta Division
Richard A. Hagelberger
vs.
United States of America
The United States having responded to the show cause order in this case, and the petitioner having subsequently replied, the cause came on for determination on the following undisputed facts.
At a general court-martial, petitioner was found guilty of certain capital offenses and sentence (sic) to death. The findings of guilt and sentence were reviewed and approved at the appropriate levels of the Army, and by the Court of Military Appeals. Having once approved the sentence and ordered it carried out, on July 3, 1956, the President of the United States reconsidered and commuted the death sentence to dishonorable discharge, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and "confinement at hard labor for a term of fifty-five years commencing on the date of this action." Commutation was also upon condition that petitioner should never have any right to parole, or suspension or remission of sentence under the various United States statutes and regulations governing federal prisoners.
The sole issue for decision is petitioner's contention that he is entitled to credit on his fifty-five year sentence for the time he spent on "death row" between the time he was found guilty and sentenced by the court-martial and the date his death sentence was commuted. The United States contends that commutation being an act of executive clemency, the President is free to attach to that act any lawful and reasonable conditions. Bishop v. United States, 96 U. S.App.D.C. 117, 223 F.2d 582, 587-588 (1955); Vitale v. Hunter, 206 F.2d 826 (10th Cir. 1953); Stroud v. Johnson, 139 F.2d 171, 172 (9th Cir. 1943), cert. den. 321 U.S. 796, 64 S.Ct. 846, 88 L.Ed. 1085 (1944); Lupo v. Zerbst, 92 F.2d 362 (5th Cir. 1937), cert. den. 303 U.S. 646, 58 S.Ct. 645, 82 L.Ed. 1108 (1937); United States v. Wright, 56 F.Supp. 489, 492 (E.D.Ill.1944). It follows, according to the Government, that since the President conditioned commutation upon running the term of years from the date of commutation, petitioner is not entitled to any credit for jail time before the death sentence was committed. The Court agrees.
Petitioner argues that the provision of the President's order that the term of years was to run from the date of commutation is not a condition, but simply a manifestation of the fact that the President was powerless to start the "new sentence" (term of 55 years) sooner than the date it was imposed, i. e. July 3, 1956. This contention is without merit. Commutation is the executive act reducing the terms of a sentence already imposed, substituting lesser for greater punishment. Rawls v. United States, 331...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Andrews v. Warden, No. 19-12443
...v. Terris , 927 F.3d 955, 959 (6th Cir. 2019), but instead "reduc[es] the terms of a sentence already imposed," Hagelberger v. United States , 445 F.2d 279, 280 (5th Cir. 1971) ; see also Duehay v. Thompson , 223 F. 305, 307 (9th Cir. 1915). "To cut short a sentence by an act of clemency is......
-
Hartfield v. Quarterman
...an executive act that reduces a sentence already imposed, substituting lesser for greater punishment. See, e.g., Hagelberger v. United States, 445 F.2d 279, 280 (5th Cir. 1971); Whan v. State, 485 S.W.2d 275, 279 (Tex.Crim.App.1972) (Onion, J., Eleven days after the Court of Criminal Appeal......
-
Dennis v. Terris
...307–08 (9th Cir. 1915) ; see also United States v. Buenrostro , 895 F.3d 1160, 1164–66 (9th Cir. 2018) ; Hagelberger v. United States , 445 F.2d 279, 280 (5th Cir. 1971) (per curiam). The commutation changes only how the sentence is carried out by switching out a greater punishment for a le......
-
State ex rel. Smith v. Blackwell
...67 Tex.Cr.R. 615, 150 S.W.2d 162 (1912); Gilderbloom v. State, 160 Tex.Cr.R. 471, 272 S.W.2d 106, 110 (1954); Hagelberger v. United States, 445 F.2d 279, 280 (5th Cir. 1971); Black's Law Dictionary, 4th Ed., p. From the very wording of the statute it is clear that it extends commutation to ......