LaFrance v. Bohlinger, 73-1327.
| Decision Date | 17 October 1973 |
| Docket Number | No. 73-1327.,73-1327. |
| Parties | Peter F. LaFRANCE v. George BOHLINGER, Superintendent, Massachusetts Correctional Institution at Norfolk. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — First Circuit |
Bernard Manning, Asst. Atty. Gen., with whom Robert H. Quinn, Atty. Gen., was on motion, for appellant.
Alexander Whiteside, II, Boston, Mass., by appointment of the court, for appellee.
Before COFFIN, Chief Judge, and CAMPBELL, Circuit Judge.
Appellee, serving a state felony sentence, was ordered released by the district court, 365 F.Supp. 198, upon his petition for habeas corpus. The district court denied the Commonwealth's motion to stay the execution of the writ pending appeal. A short while after the writ had issued, the Attorney General of Massachusetts filed in this court a motion for stay pending appeal. We granted a stay of several days, so as to have time to familiarize ourselves with the issues. Soon after, we learned that appellee had been released before his attorney or the state correctional authorities had learned of our brief stay order. The latter order has since expired, and a single judge of this court has held a hearing on whether to extend the stay until the appeal is decided.
We find a further stay to be unwarranted. Regarding the timing of the writ, much must be left to the sound discretion of the district judge. Here, the petitioner below had served much, possibly most, of his state sentence. The court may have believed that to stay the writ pending appeal, thus requiring him to serve months more of what it had found to be an unconstitutional sentence, would be too harsh, especially since he can be re-imprisoned if the appeal goes against him.
Without intending criticism of what was done, but solely as a suggested guide for the future, we comment on several aspects of the procedure below:
First, any confusion caused by the overlapping of our temporary stay and the issuance of the writ could have been avoided had the district court itself granted the Commonwealth a stay of several days sufficient to permit it to present to us its request for a stay pending appeal. We do not suggest that district courts should grant even brief "turn-around" stays when appeals are frivolous, or when justice requires that no further delay take place. There may well be cases where, if we knew something of the court's thinking in denying a stay, we would not feel it necessary to issue our own. However,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Duperry v. Kirk
...any reasonable retributive goal of sentencing, no criminal justice purpose justifies his continued confinement. See LaFrance v. Bohlinger, 487 F.2d 506, 507 (1st Cir.1973). It is difficult to imagine that the state would want to prosecute DuPerry further after he has served nearly twice the......
-
Green v. Lee
...Cir.1986) (ordering unconditional release where prosecution suppressed evidence strongly suggesting innocence); LaFrance v. Bohlinger, 487 F.2d 506, 507 (1st Cir.1973) (granting an unconditional writ where “petitioner below had served much, possibly most, of his state sentence”). Here, Gree......
-
Garcia v. Portuondo
...Cir.1986) (ordering unconditional release where prosecution suppressed evidence strongly suggesting innocence); LaFrance v. Bohlinger, 487 F.2d 506, 507 (1st Cir.1973) (granting an unconditional writ where "petitioner below had served much, possibly most, of his state sentence"). 137. The D......
-
Garcia v. Portuondo
...Cir.1986) (ordering unconditional release where prosecution suppressed evidence strongly suggesting innocence); LaFrance v. Bohlinger, 487 F.2d 506, 507 (1st Cir.1973) (granting an unconditional writ where "petitioner below had served much, possibly most, of his state sentence"). 131. The D......