In re Jennings
| Decision Date | 12 November 1902 |
| Citation | 118 F. 479 |
| Parties | In re JENNINGS. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Missouri |
Frank P. Sebree and S. C. Price, for petitioner.
On September 25, 1902, on an application duly made to me at chambers in the city of St. Louis, Mo., a writ of habeas corpus was granted, directing Robert W. McClaughry, warden of the United States penitentiary at Ft. Leavenworth, Kan., to produce before me at chambers in the city of St. Louis, Mo on October 18, 1902, the body of said Jennings, and show by what authority he held the petitioner in custody. At the time of issuing the writ a stipulation was indorsed thereon waiving the production of the body of the petitioner, and consenting that his right to be discharged might be tried and determined on the return made to the writ, with like effect as if the body of the petitioner was produced. On the day appointed for the hearing no return was filed by or on behalf of the warden, for which reason all the statements contained in the petition for the writ, and on the strength of which the writ was originally awarded, must be taken as confessed and the petitioner's right to a discharge must be determined accordingly.
It appears from the petition and from the exhibits attached thereto that Jennings was indicted and tried in the United States court for the Northern district of the Indian Territory for assault with intent to kill; that a verdict of guilty on such charge was returned against him on May 31, 1898, and that on June 4, 1898, he was duly sentenced, for the crime aforesaid to be imprisoned in the United States penitentiary situated at Ft. Leavenworth, Kan., for the term of five years, at hard labor; and that the marshal of the court 'receive, safely keep, and convey the body of said Al Jennings hence to said penitentiary, deliver him to the custody of the keeper of said penitentiary, who will receive and safely keep said Al Jennings in said penitentiary, in execution of the sentence aforesaid, and in conformity with the same, for the full period of time aforesaid.' clerk of the court furnish the marshal with two duly certified copies of the judgment and sentence, one of which was to be delivered to the keeper of the penitentiary, and other returned with a full and true account of the execution of the same. Instead of obeying the foregoing order, the marshal, as it seems, delivered the prisoner to the United States marshal for the Southern district of the Indian Territory. He was detained in custody by the marshal of the Southern district of the Indian Territory in a jail at Ardmore in said territory until February, 1899, when he was put upon trial in the United States court for the Southern District of the Indian Territory upon an indictment charging him with robbery of the United States mails, and was found guilty of said offense and on February 17, 1899, was sentenced by the last-named court to imprisonment in the Ohio state penitentiary, situated at Columbus, in the state of Ohio, for the term and period of his natural life, and in pursuance of such sentence was committed to the penitentiary last named shortly after the date on which the sentence was imposed. An appeal was taken to the United States court of appeals for the Indian Territory by the petitioner from the first sentence rendered against by the United States court for the Northern district of the Indian Territory, but no bond was given in connection with the appeal, for the purpose of staying the execution of the sentence. The case was heard on appeal in the court of appeals for the Indian Territory, and the judgment and sentence of the lower court were affirmed on October 26, 1899 (Jennings v. U.S., 53 S.W. 456), while the petitioner was incarcerated in the penitentiary at Columbus, Ohio. On June 23, 1900, the president of the United States commuted the sentence for life, which had been imposed by the United States court for the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Boykin v. State
......853; Ex parte Peterson, 19. Idaho 433, 113 P. 729, 33 L.R.A.,N.S., 1067; In re. Crow, 19 N.W. 713; Posvar v. McPherson, 36 Wyo. 159, 253 P. 667; Corporate Authorities of Scottsboro v. Johnston, 121 Ala. 397, 25 So. 809; In re. Strickler, 51 Kan. 700, 33 P. 620; In re Jennings,. C.C., 118 F. 479 (Missouri case); White, Warden, v. Pearlman, 10 Cir., 42 F.2d 788; Ex parte Bugg, 163 Mo. 44, 145 S.W. 831; and 22 O.S.1941 §§ 961, 962, 963. . . The. state cites the following cases: Barrett v. State, . 39 Okl.Cr. 50, 263 P. 166; Stone v. ......
-
Liberatore, In re
...Cir. 1970); Smith v. Swope, 91 F.2d 260, 262 (9th Cir. 1937); White v. Pearlman, 42 F.2d 788, 789 (10th Cir. 1930); In re Jennings, 118 F. 479, 481-82 (C.C.E.D.Mo.1902); Gillman v. Saxby, supra, 392 F.Supp. at 1072-73. Moreover, once entered, such a valid final judgment based on "prior juri......
-
In re Walton
...this court. See discussion of Mathes at pages 111-12, infra. 31. United States v. Vann (E.D.N.Y.1962) 207 F.Supp. 108, 113. 32. In re Jennings (1902) 118 F. 479. 33. Shields v. Beto (5th Cir.1967) 370 F.2d 34. Shields v. Beto, supra, 370 F.2d at page 1004. 35. It is interesting to observe h......
-
Ex parte Lamar
...... State v. Buck, 120 Mo. 479, 25 S.W. 573; State. v. Connell, 49 Mo. 282; In re Breton, 93 Me. 39, 44 A. 125, 74 Am.St.Rep. 335; Ex parte Morton, 132 Cal. 346, 64 P. 469. The Missouri cases were cited with approval. by Circuit Judge Thayer (In re Jennings (C.C.) 118. F. 479), where he said:. . . . 'The. law contemplates that after a prisoner has been tried and. sentenced, he will be committed at once to the custody of. the prison officials where the sentence is to be executed. He passes by virtue of the sentence into a custody. ......