Small v. United States Board of Parole, 657-69.
| Decision Date | 04 May 1970 |
| Docket Number | No. 657-69.,657-69. |
| Citation | 421 F.2d 1388 |
| Parties | Arthur E. SMALL, Jr., Appellant, v. UNITED STATES BOARD OF PAROLE, Appellee. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Tenth Circuit |
Appellant filed a pro se memorandum in opposition to summary affirmance.
Before MURRAH, Chief Judge, and BREITENSTEIN, Circuit Judge.
Certiorari Denied May 4, 1970. See 90 S.Ct. 1532.
Small was paroled from his federal confinement to the State of Colorado for service of a state sentence, and then released on bond pending an appeal of the state conviction. He is now confined in state custody on a charge of aggravated robbery. This charge prompted the issuing of a federal warrant charging violation of his parole conditions which is now lodged as a detainer.
An immediate parole hearing is requested by Small. To have the parole violation established by a judicial determination of guilt or innocence rather than by an informal board hearing is the better procedure. Shelton v. United States Board of Parole, 128 U.S.App. D.C. 311, 388 F.2d 567 (1967); Agresti v. Parker, 285 F.Supp. 893 (M.D.Pa. 1968). The board is free to await the outcome of criminal charges though they are taking a calculated risk, in the event of acquittal, if after this delay they subsequently desire to proceed on the charge not based on pending criminal proceedings.
The second issue is that federal jurisdiction had been relinquished because of the parole to state authorities. Jurisdiction is not lost but only temporarily suspended and may be resumed again when state custody has terminated. Taylor v. United States Marshal, 352 F.2d 232 (10th Cir. 1965). See also Zavada v. Taylor, 285 F.2d 66 (10th Cir. 1960).
Small's next contention is that he may possibly be imprisoned for a period exceeding the original sentence because of the delay in parole revocation. The short answer is that the period a parolee is in state custody interrupts and suspends the period of parole. Taylor v. United States Marshal, supra. The antecedent obligation is not affected by the intervening confinement. Jefferson v. Willingham, 366 F.2d 353 (10th Cir. 1966), cert. denied 385 U.S. 1018, 87 S.Ct. 744, 17 L.Ed.2d 554 (1967).
The final contention is that the parole board abused its discretion by issuing the warrant. Since 18 U.S.C. § 4205 provides for the issuance of a warrant to retake a parolee who has violated his parole conditions, neither the issuance nor its use as a detainer is an abuse...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Dickerson v. State
...79 Misc.2d 499, 358 N.Y.S.2d 900 (1974); United States v. Webster, 161 U.S.App.D.C. 1, 492 F.2d 1048 (1974); Small v. United States Board of Parole, 421 F.2d 1388 (10th Cir.1970). ...
-
La Croix, In re
...process would not require blind obedience to each step of the revocation procedures enunciated by Morrissey. (See Small v. United States (10th Cir. 1970) 421 F.2d 1388, 1389.) When, for instance, a parole violation is charged only after a criminal conviction and in part because of such conv......
-
Simon v. Moseley, 246-70.
...committed during the term of the federal parole interrupts and suspends the period of the federal parole. Small v. United States Bd. of Parole, 421 F.2d 1388 (10th Cir. 1970), cert. den. 397 U.S. 1079, 90 S.Ct. 1532, 25 L.Ed.2d 815. In such circumstances, the federal government is not requi......
-
State v. Randall
...court. Arguably it may be preferable to schedule the criminal trial first followed by the revocation hearing. Small v. United States Board of Parole, 421 F.2d 1388 (10th Cir.) Cert. denied, 397 U.S. 1079, 90 S.Ct. 1532, 25 L.Ed.2d 815 (1970). However, this preference is not sufficient to ma......