Harrison v. Snook, 107.
| Decision Date | 29 October 1927 |
| Docket Number | No. 107.,107. |
| Citation | 22 F.2d 169 |
| Parties | HARRISON v. SNOOK, Warden. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Georgia |
Price & Poag and J. D. Poag, all of Greenville, S. C., for petitioner.
John W. Henley, Asst. U. S. Atty., of Atlanta, Ga., for respondent.
The applicant was sentenced in a federal court in South Carolina to serve a sentence of more than a year in the South Carolina state penitentiary, to run concurrently with a state sentence there. During the term of the sentences the Governor of South Carolina, under the parole laws of that state (Cr. Code S. C. 1922, § 969), ordered the applicant to be released on parole, and he was released. Thereupon the Attorney General of the United States ordered his arrest and transfer to the United States penitentiary at Atlanta. After incarceration there applicant brings habeas corpus, contending that he should be at liberty under his parole, or that he should be returned to the South Carolina penitentiary.
Prior to the erection of the federal penitentiaries the Revised Statutes provided, under various sections, for the incarceration of federal prisoners in state institutions. These provisions are now to be found in the United States Code, title 18, section 693 and following (18 USCA § 693 et seq.). Section 695 gives power to the federal judges to order a sentence of more than a year to be executed in any state jail or penitentiary within the district or state where the court is held, the use of which jail or penitentiary is allowed by the Legislature of the state for that purpose. Code of South Carolina 1922, vol. 2, § 954, contains a legislative consent for such use of the South Carolina penitentiary. The sentence involved here was therefore authorized by law unless section 695, formerly R. S. § 5541, is modified by later legislation. No express repeal, or legislation so inconsistent as to imply repeal, has been pointed out. The federal penitentiary legislation has not been considered to supersede this or cognate sections of the Revised Statutes relating to imprisonment in state institutions. See Brede v. Powers, United States Marshal, 263 U. S. 4, 44 S. Ct. 8, 68 L. Ed. 132. Their retention in the Code argues a belief on the part of Congress that they are of force. The original direction by the judge that the federal sentence be executed in the South Carolina penitentiary was therefore lawful.
The state parole was ineffectual to suspend the federal sentence. It is true that by section 693 federal prisoners in state institutions are "in all respects * * * subject to the same discipline and treatment as convicts sentenced by the courts of the state or territory in which such jail or penitentiary is situated," but this has reference to discipline and treatment within the prison, and not to modifications of the sentence by parole or pardon. The parole here in question made no reference to the federal sentence and did not expressly undertake to suspend or affect it. Moreover, the later federal parole laws (sections 716, 722) provide for federal boards of parole in all state penitentiaries, where federal convicts are confined, and section 716 declares that no release on parole shall become operative until approved by the Attorney General of the United States. The parole by the Governor under the laws of South Carolina had no...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hogan v. Hartwell
...United States could issue any effective order of that character, citing Section 2, Art. II, United States Constitution, and Harrison v. Snook, D.C., 22 F.2d 169. But there is here involved no matter of remission of fine release from imprisonment. The fine has long since been paid and the ti......
-
State ex rel. Dean v. Haubrich
...United States could issue any effective order of that character, citing Section 2, Art. II, United States Constitution, and Harrison v. Snook, D.C., 22 F.2d 169. But there is here involved no matter of remission of fine or release from imprisonment. The fine has long since been paid and the......
-
Banghart v. Swope
...States had no power to order his removal to the United States Penitentiary at Alcatraz. Petitioner relies upon the case of Harrison v. Snook, Warden, D.C., 22 F.2d 169, in support of his contention. That case is not in point insofar as the present proceeding is concerned. Sentence in the Ha......