Powell v. Sanford, 11638.

Decision Date09 July 1946
Docket NumberNo. 11638.,11638.
Citation156 F.2d 355
PartiesPOWELL v. SANFORD, Warden.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit

James O. Powell, in pro. per., of Leavenworth, Kan., for appellant.

M. Neil Andrews, U. S. Atty., and Harvey H. Tisinger, Asst. U. S. Atty., both of Atlanta, Ga., for appellee.

Before HUTCHESON, WALLER, and LEE, Circuit Judges.

LEE, Circuit Judge.

This is an appeal from a judgment discharging a writ of habeas corpus issued by the court below upon the petition of appellant, and remanding appellant to the custody of the warden of the United States penitentiary in Atlanta, Georgia.

The facts are: On October 23, 1942, petitioner was sentenced, following conviction of a local crime, to a term of two to ten years in the West Virginia State prison at Moundsville, West Virginia. On or about May 13, 1944, petitioner escaped therefrom. On June 5, 1944, Huntington, West Virginia, city and West Virginia State police, on a warrant charging that petitioner was an escaped prisoner, apprehended him and took him into custody. After serving three days on the remaining portion of his sentence in the West Virginia penitentiary, petitioner was arraigned before a United States Commissioner for violation of the National Motor Vehicle Theft Act, 18 U.S.C.A. § 408, and for violation of the Selective Training and Service Act, 50 U.S.C.A.Appendix, § 301 et seq. Subsequently, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, Bluefield Division, he was indicted, tried, and convicted on a count charging him with transporting a stolen automobile in interstate commerce and on a count charging him with failing to have a Selective Training and Service registration card. Three-year sentences, to run concurrently, were imposed under each count, and service of the sentences thus imposed was begun on June 26, 1944.

Only one question is presented: Did the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia have jurisdiction to sentence petitioner to the custody of the Attorney General of the United States while petitioner was in the custody of the State of West Virginia?

The Supreme Court has given a clear answer to this question. In Ponzi v. Fessenden, 258 U.S. 254, 259, 260, 42 S.Ct. 309, 310, 66 L.Ed. 607, 611, 22 A.L.R. 879, that Court said:

"We live in the jurisdiction of two sovereignties, each having its own system of courts to declare and enforce its laws in common territory. It would be impossible for such courts to fulfill their respective functions without embarrassing conflict unless rules were adopted by them to avoid it. The people for whose benefit these two systems are maintained are deeply interested that each system shall be effective and unhindered in its vindication of its laws. The situation requires, therefore, not only definite rules fixing the powers of the courts in cases of jurisdiction over the same persons and things in actual litigation, but also a spirit of reciprocal comity and mutual assistance to promote due and orderly procedure.

"One accused of crime has a right to a full and fair trial according to the law of the government whose sovereignty he is alleged to have offended, but he has no more than that. He should not be permitted to use the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
16 cases
  • Strand v. Schmittroth
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit
    • May 3, 1956
    ...L.Ed. 522; Rawls v. United States, 10 Cir., 1948, 166 F.2d 532; Stripling v. United States, 10 Cir., 1949, 172 F.2d 636; Powell v. Sanford, 5 Cir., 1946, 156 F.2d 355; Kirk v. Squier, supra. 16 Or, in the words of the District Judge below: "I cannot believe that the right does not lodge in ......
  • Strand v. Schmittroth
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit
    • December 3, 1957
    ...state presumed); Vanover v. Cox, 8 Cir., 136 F.2d 442, certiorari denied 320 U.S. 779, 64 S.Ct. 93, 88 L.Ed. 468 (same); cf. Powell v. Sanford, 5 Cir., 156 F.2d 355; People v. Knight, 106 Cal.App.2d 312, 234 P.2d 992 (federal consent to state proceedings presumed); cf. People v. Nokes, 25 C......
  • Com. v. Domanski
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court
    • December 21, 1954
    ...alone way raise the objection to the interference with its rights. Rawls v. United States, 10 Cir., 166 F.2d 532, 534. See Powell v. Sanford, 5 Cir., 156 F.2d 355. The motions in arrest of judgment were rightly 4. The principal witness for the Commonwealth was one Bistany, an accomplice of ......
  • United States v. Kobey
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of California
    • December 23, 1952
    ...Taintor, 1872, 16 Wall. 366, 83 U.S. 366, 21 L.Ed. 287; United States v. Fenno, supra, 2 Cir., 167 F.2d at pages 595-596; Powell v. Sanford, 5 Cir., 1946, 156 F.2d 355; Florio v. Edwards, 5 Cir., 1936, 80 F.2d 509, 510; Grant v. Guernsey, 10 Cir., 1933, 63 F.2d 163, certiorari denied, 1933,......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT