Rooney v. Hunter, 929 H. C.

Decision Date15 December 1945
Docket NumberNo. 929 H. C.,929 H. C.
Citation64 F. Supp. 165
PartiesROONEY v. HUNTER, Warden.
CourtU.S. District Court — District of Kansas

Benjamin F. Endres, of Leavenworth, Kan., for petitioner.

Eugene W. Davis, Asst. U. S. Dist. Atty., of Topeka, Kan., for respondent.

HELVERING, District Judge.

The petitioner, having been duly sworn, fully testified before the Court in his own behalf and offered in evidence the following exhibits which were received without objection:

(a) Certified copy of indictment in case No. 2636 filed on April 28, 1939, in the Ottumwa Division of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa, charging petitioner with violation of 12 U.S.C.A. § 588b.

(b) Certified copy of the Court's order to docket said indictment, made on April 28, 1939.

(c) Certified copy of petition for writ of habeas corpus ad prosequendum, filed in case No. 2636 in United States District Court for Southern District of Iowa, Ottumwa Division, on September 5, 1941.

(d) Certified copy of order for writ of habeas corpus ad prosequendum filed in case No. 2636 in United States District Court for Southern District of Iowa, Ottumwa Division, on September 5, 1941.

(e) Certified copy of writ of habeas corpus ad prosequendum issued by the United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa, Ottumwa Division, on September 5, 1941, and directed to the Warden of the Missouri State Penitentiary at Jefferson City, Missouri, and Marshal's return thereto.

(f) Certified copy of judgment and commitment issued by United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa, Ottumwa Division, on September 18, 1941, in case No. 2636, and Marshal's return thereon.

(g) Parole executed by the Governor of the State of Missouri on November 14, 1944, to Dellmar Rooney.

(h) Mimeographed instructions, with blanks filled by typewriter, purportedly issued to Dellmar Rooney by parole authorities at time of parole from Missouri State Penitentiary in compliance with above parole order.

Whereupon respondent offered in evidence photostatic copy of judgment and commitment issued by United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa, Ottumwa Division, on September 18, 1941, in case No. 2636, and marshal's return thereon. And thereafter counsel for the parties made their argument to the Court and the Court granted the parties leave to file briefs. It was agreed that upon the filing of said briefs by the parties the case should stand submitted to the Court for determination upon the record.

Now upon this 15th day of December, 1945, the cause comes on for determination by the Court and the Court, having considered the evidence in the case, the pleadings and arguments, both oral and by brief, of counsel and being fully advised in the premises, finds all issues in said cause in favor of the respondent and against petitioner and makes the following findings of fact and conclusions of law:

Findings of Fact.

1. The Court finds that the petitioner was indicted by a Grand Jury in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa, in Criminal Case No. 2636, in an indictment containing one count, charging a violation of 12 U.S.C.A. § 558b, such indictment being filed in open court on the 28th day of April, 1939. The Court further finds that said indictment charged an offense against the laws of the United States.

2. The Court further finds that thereafter and on the 18th day of September, 1941, the petitioner was arraigned in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa, Ottumwa Division, and was convicted on his plea of guilty to the offense charged in said indictment in case No. 2636, and was then and there sentenced by the Court to be committed to the custody of the Attorney General for imprisonment for the period of ten (10) years.

3. The Court further finds that said sentence imposed by the United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa, Ottumwa Division, in case No. 2636 provided that, petitioner having been brought before that Court by writ of habeas corpus ad prosequendum and which said writ provided that said petitioner be returned to the Missouri State Penitentiary where he was then serving a sentence imposed by the Circuit Court of St. Francis County, Missouri, on or about the 1st day of February, 1938, the said sentence then imposed by the United States District Court should run concurrently with said sentence imposed by the said Circuit Court of St. Francis County, Missouri.

4. The Court further finds that petitioner, pursuant to the judgment and commitment in said case No. 2636, was thereafter returned to the Missouri State Penitentiary at Jefferson City, Missouri.

5. The Court finds that on November 14, 1944, petitioner was released from the Missouri State Penitentiary on parole from the service of the said sentence he was then serving therein and with which the sentence in case No. 2636 imposed by the United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa, Ottumwa Division, was to run concurrently. Said parole provided that petitioner was to report immediately on his release under authority of said parole to the United States Marshal of Kansas City, Missouri, and that the said Marshal would hold himself responsible to the Governor of the State of Missouri for petitioner's behavior and compliance with the conditions of the parole and that upon petitioner's arrival at his destination, he and the U. S. Marshal would advise the State Board of Probation and Parole of that fact and make the usual periodic reports to said Board.

6. The Court further finds that the State of Missouri intended to and did release petitioner at said time and at Jefferson City, Missouri, to the custody of the U. S. Marshal to be taken into the custody of...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 cases
  • Tims v. SHERIFF OF CLARK COUNTY, SPRINGFIELD, C-3-82-376.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of Ohio
    • August 23, 1982
    ...custody of the appellee to serve the sentence of the Madison Circuit Court. Due process had been accorded to appellant. Rooney v. Hunter, D.C., 1945, 64 F.Supp. 165." .... The right of the state to exact the penalty for the non-observance of its penal laws by the accused is not waived but m......
  • Guerrieri v. Maxwell
    • United States
    • Ohio Supreme Court
    • December 5, 1962
    ...custody of the appellee to serve the sentence of the Madison Circuit Court. Due process had been accorded to appellant. Rooney v. Hunter, D.C., 1945, 64 F.Supp. 165. 'In the opinion of the court, a delay in the execution of a judgment of commitment does not satisfy the judgment, nor does it......
  • Eaves v. Edwards, Civ. A. No. 2027.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Middle District of Tennessee
    • June 9, 1955
    ...427; Lu Woy Hung v. Haff, 9 Cir., 78 F.2d 836; United States v. Marrin, D.C., 227 F. 314; In re Andrews, D.C., 236 F. 300; Rooney v. Hunter, D.C., 64 F.Supp. 165. The Court has examined the other authorities cited and relied upon by the petitioner and, while they contain expressions giving ......
  • State ex rel. Smith v. Dowd
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court
    • February 14, 1955
    ...the custody of the appellee to serve the sentence of the Madison Circuit Court. Due process had been accorded to appellant. Rooney v. Hunter, D.C.1945, 64 F.Supp. 165. In the opinion of the court, a delay in the execution of a judgment of commitment does not satisfy the judgment, nor does i......

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