Hall v. Looney
| Citation | 256 F.2d 59 |
| Decision Date | 29 May 1958 |
| Docket Number | No. 5830.,5830. |
| Parties | James H. HALL, Appellant, v. C. H. LOONEY, Warden, United States Penitentiary, Leavenworth, Kansas, Appellee. |
| Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (10th Circuit) |
Kenneth C. Schoen, Denver, Colo., for appellant.
A. I. West, Asst. U. S. Atty., Topeka, Kan. (William C. Farmer, U. S. Atty., Topeka, Kan., and Milton P. Beach, Asst. U. S. Atty., Kansas City, Kan., on the brief), for appellee.
Before MURRAH, PICKETT and LEWIS, Circuit Judges.
James H. Hall, an inmate in the United States Penitenitary at Leavenworth, Kansas, appeals from an order of the United States District Court for the District of Kansas, discharging a writ of habeas corpus and dismissing the petition.
The record discloses that on April 2, 1954 the petitioner, while in the custody of the Alabama State authorities, was sentenced in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama to be imprisoned for a period of three years, which sentence was to begin upon petitioner's due and legal release from the custody of the State of Alabama. Petitioner was thereafter sentenced to serve a two year term by a State Court of Alabama. Before the completion of the Alabama sentence the petitioner escaped. He was arrested by Federal authorities in the Western District of Kentucky in 1957 for a violation of Federal Statutes. The petitioner was sentenced on April 9, 1957 in the United States District Court for the Western District of Kentucky to imprisonment for a term of five years for this violation. The sentence made no mention of the Alabama State Court sentence, but provided that it should run concurrently with the Alabama Federal Court sentence. The crux of petitioner's contention is that he is unlawfully held by the Warden because, under the terms of the Federal Court sentences, neither of them could begin to run until after the Alabama State Court sentence had been satisfied. This is an ingenious argument, but without merit.
The Kentucky Federal Court, with the physical possession and custody of petitioner, had the right to prosecute and sentence him for offenses committed within its jurisdiction. In attempting to permit the petitioner to serve the Federal sentences concurrently, it was provided that the Kentucky Federal Court sentence should be served concurrently with the Alabama Federal Court sentence. There is no showing that the Alabama state authorities objected to this procedure, and they apparently consented to it as they lodged a detainer with the Warden of the United States Penitentiary at Leavenworth. Furthermore, in the absence of any showing that the Alabama state authorities objected to the exercise of the Federal jurisdiction in Kentucky, it is presumed that they consented thereto. Hebert v. State of Louisiana, 272 U.S. 312, 47 S.Ct. 103, 71 L.Ed. 270, 48 A.L.R. 1102; Ponzi v. Fessenden, 258 U.S. 254, 42 S. Ct. 309, 66 L.Ed. 607; Rawls v. United States, 10 Cir., 166 F.2d 532, certiorari denied 334 U.S. 848, 68 S.Ct. 1498, 92 L.Ed. 1771; Wall v. Hudspeth, 10 Cir., 108 F.2d 865.
When a person is lawfully...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Gee v. State of Kan.
...of the prisoner." Hernandez, 689 F.2d at 918; accord Casias v. United States, 421 F.2d 1233, 1234 (10th Cir.1970); Hall v. Looney, 256 F.2d 59, 60 (10th Cir.1958); Hayward, 246 F.2d at Petitioner implicitly argues that the federal government could not transfer custody to Kansas because of a......
-
Harkins v. Lauf
...after the completion of his federal sentence. See Derengowski v. United States Marshal, 8th Cir. 1967, 377 F.2d 223; Hall v. Looney, 10th Cir. 1958, 256 F.2d 59; United States ex rel. Moses v. Kipp, 7th Cir. 1956, 232 F.2d 147; Gunton v. Squier, 9th Cir. 1950, 185 F.2d 470; United States ex......
-
Moore v. State of Missouri
...completion of the sentence imposed by the other sovereign. See Derengowski v. U. S. Marshal, 8th Cir. 1967, 377 F.2d 223; Hall v. Looney, 10th Cir. 1958, 256 F.2d 59; United States ex rel. Moses v. Kipp, 7th Cir. 1956, 232 F.2d 147; Gunton v. Squier, 9th Cir. 1950, 185 F.2d 470; United Stat......
-
United States ex rel. Brown v. Malcolm, Civ. A. No. 72 C 706.
...Cir.), cert. denied 389 U.S. 884, 88 S.Ct. 144, 19 L.Ed.2d 180 (1967); Opheim v. Willingham, 364 F.2d 989 (10 Cir. 1966); Hall v. Looney, 256 F.2d 59 (10 Cir. 1958); United States ex rel. Moses v. Kipp, 232 F.2d 147 (7 Cir. 1956); Stamphill v. Johnston, 136 F.2d 291 (9 Cir.), cert. denied 3......