Hart v. Ohio Bureau of Probation and Parole, 14295.
| Decision Date | 29 May 1961 |
| Docket Number | No. 14295.,14295. |
| Citation | 290 F.2d 550 |
| Parties | Louis J. HART, Petitioner-Appellant, v. OHIO BUREAU OF PROBATION AND PAROLE, and Ohio State Board of Parole, Respondents-Appellees. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit |
Louis J. Hart, in pro. per.
Aubrey A. Wendt, Asst. Atty. Gen. of Ohio (Mark McElroy, Atty. Gen. of Ohio, on the brief), for appellee.
Before MILLER, Chief Judge, and WEICK and O'SULLIVAN, Circuit Judges.
Appellant was convicted of armed robbery and other offenses in the Common Pleas Court of Montgomery County, Ohio, and received a sentence of from ten to twenty-five years. While on parole he was arrested and convicted of a federal offense in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio. He is now serving that sentence in the United States Penitentiary at Terre Haute, Indiana. The Pardon and Parole Commission of Ohio declared appellant to be a parole violator and a detainer warrant was sent to the Superintendent of the United States Penitentiary at Terre Haute. Custody of appellant has not yet been released to the State of Ohio.
Appellant filed the present proceeding in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio attacking the validity of the detainer warrant and the attempt of the State of Ohio to take him into custody under the State Court judgment after service of the federal sentence. His petition is styled by him as a Petition for a Writ of Scire Facias, and/or Writ of Habeas Corpus, Ad-Subjiciendum, Ad-Testificandum, Ad-Prosequendum. He named as defendants the Ohio Bureau of Probation and Parole and the Ohio State Board of Parole. He contends that the State of Ohio relinquished jurisdiction of him when they turned appellant over to the federal authorities. In view of our disposition of this proceeding on other grounds, it is unnecessary for us to pass on this contention.
The District Judge considered the proceeding as a motion to vacate sentence under Section 2255, Title 28 U.S.C., and dismissed the petition. On this appeal appellant contends that the District Judge was in error in treating the proceeding as a motion to vacate sentence, calling attention to the fact that Ohio State officials are named respondents therein. We agree with this contention. No attack is made by appellant upon the Federal Court judgment, under which appellant is now in custody. However, the judgment should be affirmed if the ruling is correct on other grounds. J. E. Riley Inv. Co. v. Commissioner, 311 U.S. 55, 59, 61 S.Ct. 95, 85 L.Ed. 36; Helvering v. Gowran, 302 U.S. 238, 245, 58 S.Ct. 154, 82 L.Ed. 224.
Irrespective of the styling given by appellant to his petition, it must be treated by us as a habeas corpus proceeding in order for jurisdiction to exist in the District Court to pass on the validity of the unserved portion of the State Court judgment. Considered as a habeas corpus proceeding, it is fatally defective in the following respects.
The basic principle of habeas corpus proceedings is to inquire into the legality of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Booker v. State of Arkansas
...question of the necessity, under 28 U.S.C. § 2253, of a certificate of probable cause, absent here, see Hart v. Ohio Bureau of Probation and Parole, 290 F.2d 550, 551-552 (6 Cir. 1961)) must be Booker is an inmate of the federal penitentiary at Atlanta, Georgia. His incarceration there is c......
-
Word v. State of North Carolina, 10765
...the issue. Booker v. Arkansas, 380 F.2d 240 (8th Cir. 1967); Duncan v. Maine, 295 F.2d 528 (1st Cir. 1961); Hart v. Ohio Bureau of Probation and Parole, 290 F.2d 550 (6th Cir. 1961). 7 In fact Congress partially redistributed judicial power in 1966 by the enactment of P.L. 89-590, codified ......
-
Miller v. Gladden
...entitle him to immediate release from custody. McNally v. Hill, 293 U.S. 131, 55 S.Ct. 24, 79 L.Ed. 238; Hart v. Ohio Bureau of Probation and Parole, 6 Cir., 290 F.2d 550, 551. Since the question referred to above, if decided in Miller's favor, would not entitle him to release at this time,......
-
United States ex rel. Van Scoten v. Commonwealth of Pa.
...Karp v. United States, 296 F.2d 564 (8 Cir. 1961), cert. denied 369 U.S. 867, 82 S.Ct. 1034, 8 L.Ed.2d 86; Hart v. Ohio Bureau of Probation and Parole 290 F.2d 550, 551 (6 Cir. 1961). * * In Allen v. United States, 327 F.2d 58 (5 Cir. 1964), the Ahrens case was cited in holding that Allen, ......