Lionel v. Day, CIV-76-0741-D.
Citation | 430 F. Supp. 384 |
Decision Date | 16 December 1976 |
Docket Number | No. CIV-76-0741-D.,CIV-76-0741-D. |
Parties | Robert Lamont LIONEL, Petitioner, v. Irl E. DAY, Warden FCI, El Reno, Oklahoma, Respondent. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Oklahoma |
Robert Lamont Lionel, pro se.
David L. Russell, U. S. Atty., by Charles Lee Waters, Asst. U. S. Atty., Oklahoma City, Okl., for respondent.
The above-named petitioner a federal convict confined in the Federal Correctional Institution at El Reno, Oklahoma, has filed this proceeding for a writ of habeas corpus in which he claims that he is entitled to credit on the service of his federal sentences of 934 days spent in the custody of the State of Florida. From the court's examination of the files and records herein the following undisputed facts emerge:
The petitioner's Sentence Computation Record prepared by the Bureau of Prisons shows inoperative time of 934 days as follows:
It is readily apparent that petitioner is seeking to receive credit for (1) all the time spent in escape status prior to his state arrest; (2) his Florida jail time; and (3) time spent in Florida custody subsequent to his state conviction.
Such an extravagant claim is wholly without merit. The petitioner's escape from his federal custodian interrupted the service of his federal sentence and the intervening time between his escape and the retaking by federal authorities was properly not taken into account or allowed as a part of his term. Anderson v. Corall, 263 U.S. 193, 44 S.Ct. 43, 68 L.Ed. 247 (1923). An escapee cannot employ time spent in an escape status in tabulating the period of custody under his commitment....
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Parker
...federal court not bound by agreement of state plea agreement unless federal officials were involved in plea bargain); Lionel v. Day, 430 F.Supp. 384, 386 (W.D.Okla.1976) ("obviously no comment or order by a state judge can control the service of a federal ...
-
Breeden v. New Jersey Dept. of Corrections
...the sentence by the state court was made to run concurrently with the federal sentence the prisoner was then serving. Lionel v. Day, 430 F.Supp. 384, 386 (W.D.Okla.1976). "Obviously no comment or order by a state judge can control the service of a federal sentence." Ibid. As between states,......
-
State ex rel. Massey v. Hun
...64 (10th Cir.1957) (marshal has no duty to take petitioner into custody until released from second state sentence); Lionel v. Day, 430 F.Supp. 384, 386 (W.D.Okla.1976) ("Obviously no comment or order by a state judge can control the service of a federal sentence.") In a concurring opinion i......
-
Holleman v. United States, S 84-186.
...may not complain of the order in which he is to serve the various sentences. Mitchell v. Boen, 194 F.2d at 407; Lionel v. Day, 430 F.Supp. 384, 386 (W.D.Okla.1976). The state exercised proper custody and jurisdiction over the petitioner during the time in question. The state has retained cu......