Harrison v. King, 11656.
| Decision Date | 15 May 1940 |
| Docket Number | No. 11656.,11656. |
| Citation | 111 F.2d 420 |
| Parties | HARRISON v. KING, Warden. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit |
Thomas A. Harrison, pro se, submitted brief.
Maurice M. Milligan, U. S. Atty., and Otto Schmid, Asst. U. S. Atty., both of Kansas City, Mo., for appellee.
Before GARDNER, WOODROUGH, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
Thomas A. Harrison, who is in the custody of the Warden of the Federal Prison Camp at the Medical Center for Federal Prisoners at Springfield, Missouri, appeals from an order dismissing his petition for writ of habeas corpus.
It appears that he has been indicted and sentenced for violation of federal laws in several federal districts: (1) In the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio he was sentenced on April 20, 1930, to serve an aggregate term of nine years. (2) In the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York he was subsequently indicted on thirty one counts, thirty charging substantive offenses and one charging conspiracy, and on his appearance, effected by writ of habeas corpus ad prosequendum to penitentiary officials, he plead guilty and was sentenced to consecutive terms of five years each on counts one and two, and two years on the count for conspiracy — a total of twelve years, to begin from the date of sentence. (He was also given a suspended sentence of five years on each of the other twenty-eight counts.) His total sentences to be served then aggregated twelve years, eight months and eleven days. (3) In the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania he was indicted and sentenced to terms of three years, and one year and one day, each to begin at the expiration of the sentence imposed by the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. Accordingly, when he was returned to the federal penitentiary on February 19, 1931, his total sentence aggregated fifteen years, eight months and eleven days1 and that period has not yet elapsed. His present application for the writ of habeas corpus was filed in forma pauperis in the United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri on August 25, 1939. He alleged that he had at that time served all of his valid and lawful sentence, taking into consideration the period which he was entitled to have deducted on account of his good behavior. He rested his allegation that he had completely served his time upon a single contention that the two-year part of his sentence imposed by the New York District Court upon his plea of guilty to the 31st count of the indictment in that court, was null and void. With the two-year sentence on the 31st count eliminated, he claims he is entitled to be discharged. That count charged him with conspiracy. The other counts of the indictment charged commission of substantive offenses. The claim presented to the trial court, and urged on this appeal, is that it is apparent on the face of the New York indictment and judgment that there was no jurisdiction in the court to impose the separate sentence on the 31st or conspiracy count in that the count charged offenses which were mere incidents of or identical with the substantive offenses charged in the other thirty counts of the indictment, and that the conspiracy count added to the other counts constituted double jeopardy, contrary to the federal constitution.
The trial court directed the petition for the writ to be filed and issued a show cause order for the production of the authority for the detention. The record was thereupon produced, including the indictment and judgment complained of in the petition for habeas corpus, and the various judgments, sentences, commitments and certification of time served and allowance for good behavior relating to the prisoner. On consideration thereof, the court found that the petitioner was not entitled to the writ and dismissed his application therefor. The grounds of the appeal to this court are, that the court erred in considering the petition for the writ in the absence of the petitioner, and in refusing to find that the record before the court of the New York indictment and judgment disclosed on the face thereof that the sentence imposed by the New York court on the conspiracy count of the indictment was void for the reasons stated.
Although a very elaborate brief of many pages with exhaustive citations has been submitted...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
U.S. v. Hines, 82-2334
...(West 1976). U.S. v. Jacek, 298 F.2d 429 (3rd Cir.1962) cert. denied, 370 U.S. 952, 82 S.Ct. 1601, 8 L.Ed.2d 817 (1962); Harrison v. King, 111 F.2d 420, (8th Cir.1940); U.S. v. Carpenter, 151 F. 214, (9th Cir.1907); U.S. v. Jacek, 196 F.Supp. 152 (D.Pa.1961), aff'd, 298 F.2d 429 (3rd Cir.19......
-
Ellerbrake v. King, 11770.
...v. King, Warden, 8 Cir., 112 F.2d 1004, decided June 29, 1940; Thompson v. King, Warden, 8 Cir., 107 F.2d 307, 308; Harrison v. King, Warden, 8 Cir., 111 F.2d 420; McKee v. Johnston, Warden, 9 Cir., 109 F. 2d 273; Murdock v. Pollock, 8 Cir., 229 F. The application for the writ of habeas cor......
-
Howard v. United States
...only a question of law involved, the court is not required to order that the petitioner be produced in court for a hearing. Harrison v. King, 8 Cir., 111 F.2d 420; Murdock v. Pollock, 8 Cir., 229 F. 392; Minnec v. Hudspeth, 10 Cir., 123 F.2d We are satisfied that under the circumstances of ......
-
Banks v. O'GRADY, 492
...v. King, Warden, 8 Cir., 112 F.2d 1004, decided June 29, 1940; Thompson v. King, Warden, 8 Cir., 107 F.2d 307, 308; Harrison v. King, Warden, 8 Cir., 111 F.2d 420; McKee v. Johnston, Warden, 9 Cir., 109 F.2d 273; Murdock v. Pollock, 8 Cir., 229 F. 392. We shall, therefore, examine the Petit......