Kinney, In re

• Decision Date: 24 June 1977
• Citation: 363 N.E.2d 1337,5 Mass.App.Ct. 457
• Parties: In re Henry KINNEY, Petitioner. Appeals Court of Massachusetts, Hampshire
• Court: Appeals Court of Massachusetts

Page 1337

363 N.E.2d 1337

5 Mass.App.Ct. 457

In re Henry KINNEY, Petitioner.

Appeals Court of Massachusetts, Hampshire.

Argued May 9, 1977.

Decided June 24, 1977.

Thomas Lesser, Conway (William C. Newman, Somerville, with him), for petitioner.

John P. Corbett, Asst. Atty. Gen., for respondents.

Before HALE, C.J., and GRANT and BROWN, JJ.

BROWN, Justice.

The petitioner appeals from the denial of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus, filed in the Superior Court.

In March, 1974, the petitioner was sentenced to a two and one-half to three year term at the Massachusetts Correctional Institution at Walpole. In September, 1974, following his transfer to the Plymouth Forestry Camp, he escaped. He was arrested on January 3, 1975, in Amherst and charged with several offenses. At his arraignment later that day in the District Court of Hampshire on the local offenses, he revealed that he had escaped, and asked to be returned to Walpole. The request was denied, and bail was set at $5,000. He was unable to post bill. There were other hearings on his cases in the District Court of Hampshire during January, 1975, and at each hearing he continued to request transfer to Walpole.

On February 1, 1975, he was found guilty in the District Court of Hampshire of several local offenses and was sentenced to eleven months in the Hampshire County house of correction. Thereafter, he was found guilty in the Superior Court of several other offenses and was sentenced to fifteen months in the house of correction, to be served concurrently with the sentence imposed by the District Court. ¹ The petitioner continued to seek a transfer to Walpole, but all his requests were denied.

On February 17, 1976, the petitioner filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. He requested release at the expiration of his Superior Court sentence. The judge denied the petition. Following the completed of his Superior Court sentence on May 15, 1976, the petitioner was transferred to Walpole to begin serving the remainder of his Walpole sentence. ²

1. There is no merit to the petitioner's contention that the District Court judge, acting pursuant to G.L. c. 279, § 8, intended that the sentence to the Hampshire County house of correction should run concurrently with the Walpole sentence. General Laws (Ter.Ed.) c. 279, § 8, provides as follows: 'A convict upon whom two or more sentences . . . are imposed may be fully committed upon all such sentences at the same time, and shall serve them in the order named in the mittimuses upon which he is committed . . ..' The sentences involved herein were not imposed at the same time, and neither of the judges imposing the later sentences made any mention of the earlier sentence.

The petitioner's argument is premised on the motion that if a prisoner is serving one sentence and is then given another sentence and there is no indication of whether the sentences are to run concurrently or consecutively, they are deemed to run concurrently. See Henschel v. Commissioner of Correction, --- Mass. ---, --- ^a, 330 N.E.2d 480 (1975); Baranow v. Commissioner of Correction, 1 Mass.App. 831, 832, 297 N.E.2d 67 (1973). See also ABA Standards, Sentencing Alternatives and Procedures § 3.4 (1968). However, in the instant case the prisoner was not 'serving' one sentence at the time he was sentenced for other crimes. Rather, his escape had suspended the running of the original sentence until such time as he should be returned to Walpole. See Harding v. State Bd. of Parole, 307 Mass. 217, 220 (1940); Zerbst v. Kidwell, 304 U.S. 359, 361, 58 S.Ct. 872, 82 L.Ed. 1399 (1938). No portion of the time served in the Hampshire County house of correction could be used to reduce the time the petitioner was required to serve at Walpole because during the time he was in the house of correction he was not in actual or constructive custody under the first sentence. Ibid.

The petitioner argues that Commonwealth v. Grant, 366 Mass. 272, 217 N.E.2d 484 (1974), expanded the definition of 'constructive custody' beyond the meaning given to it in Harding. The Supreme Judicial Court in Grant interpreted G.L. c. 279, § 33A, as appearing in St.1961, c. 75, as allowing a defendant to receive credit for time spent in Federal custody while awaiting trial on both State and Federal charges when the charges arose out of the same incident. The court added that in the circumstances of that case the defendant could be considered to have been in 'constructive State custody.' Commonwealth v. Grant, supra, at 276, 217 N.E.2d 484.

The petitioner's reliance on Grant is misplaced. The jail time credit statute construed in Grant was intended to serve a different purpose from the statute giving a judge discretion to impose concurrent sentences. The purpose of jail time credit statutes 'was to afford relief to those not convicted and not serving any sentence but who because of inability to obtain bail, for example, were held in custody while awaiting trial' (emphasis supplied). Manning v. Superintendent, M.C.I., Norfolk, --- Mass. ---, --- ^b, 361 N.E.2d 1299 (1977), quoting from Needel, petitioner, 344 Mass. 260, 262, 182 N.E.2d 125 (1962). Moreover, the jail time credit statutes do not apply to an individual confined pursuant to a sentence for an unrelated crime. Needel, petitioner, supra. Libby v. Commissioner of Correction, 353 Mass. 472, 475, 233 N.E.2d 200 (1968). Inasmuch as the petitioner was sentenced to the Hampshire County house of correction for crimes unrelated to those for which he had been serving time in Walpole, the court's dictum in Grant about constructive custody can have no application to the instant case.

Finally, the District Court judge did not have the power to sentence the petitioner to a term in Walpole for the new offenses committed (G.L. c. 218, § 27), and he could not, by his decision, affect the earlier sentence to Walpole. ³ Therefore, the only way he could have given the petitioner a sentence which, in effect, would have run concurrently with his prior sentence would have been to remand him to the Walpole authorities to serve out the old sentence, giving him credit on his new sentences for the remainder of the time he served in Walpole on the old sentence. His failure to sentence the petitioner in this manner indicates his desire that the sentences should not run concurrently. See United States v. Remus, 12 F.2d 239, 240 (6th Cir.), cert. den., 271 U.S. 689, 46 S.Ct. 640, 70 L.Ed. 1153 (1926).

2. The petitioner also argues that he was denied equal protection of the law because, being indigent, he was unable to raise the bail set by the District Court judge and was confined to the Hampshire County house of correction while awaiting trial on the offenses committed following his escape. He contends that if he had been able to raise bail, he would have been remanded to the custody of the Walpole authorities. Then, when he was sentenced by the District Court judge, he would have had the opportunity of receiving concurrent sentences. ⁴

As was discussed in section one, the judge had the discretion to impose a sentence which, in effect, would have run concurrently with the petitioner's previous sentence, if the judge so chose. There is no reason to believe that if the facts were different and the defendant had been incarcerated in Walpole rather than in the Hampshire County house of correction the judge would have made the defendant's sentences run concurrently. The defendant's argument on this point is grounded on nothing firmer than speculation.

3. The trial contention of the petitioner is that the failure of an administrator at Walpole, acting under the authority of the Commissioner of Correction to hold a hearing prior to deciding not to transfer him to Walpole violated due process. In order for the requirements of procedural due process to...