Stanfield v. Swenson
| Decision Date | 26 September 1967 |
| Docket Number | No. 18809.,18809. |
| Citation | 381 F.2d 755 |
| Parties | Leroy STANFIELD, Appellant, v. Harold R. SWENSON, Warden, Missouri State Penitentiary, Appellee. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit |
Leroy Stanfield, pro se.
Norman H. Anderson, Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, Mo., for appellee; Richard C. Ashby, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, Mo., on the brief.
Before VOGEL, Chief Judge, and BLACKMUN and HEANEY, Circuit Judges.
This is a consolidated appeal of two cases. In what we shall refer to as the first cause of action appellant, Leroy Stanfield, petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus, claiming to be unlawfully restrained of his liberty by the appellee, Harold R. Swenson, Warden, Missouri State Penitentiary.1 What will be referred to as the second cause of action was against the appellee Warden for damages under the provisions of §§ 1981 to 1989, inc., 42 U.S.C.A., alleging false imprisonment beyond the expiration date of the sentences he had been serving. Obviously the second cause of action was entirely dependent upon appellant's success in the first cause of action. Applying the provisions of Rule 18(b), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A., these two cases were joined. The District Court denied appellant's petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the first action and dismissed the second action, being the one for damages. We affirm.
A detailed review of the complicated factual record becomes necessary. On April 17, 1964, appellant was sentenced, on a plea of guilty, to serve a term of three years and six months by the Circuit Court of Greene County, Missouri. On January 4, 1965, while serving such sentence, appellant escaped. In the period following his escape and prior to apprehension, appellant committed a second offense for which he was sentenced on January 29, 1965, by the Circuit Court of Stoddard County, Missouri, to a term of three years with the sentence as declared by the Stoddard County Circuit Court to commence running "on the 29th day of January, 1965".
On July 17, 1966, the sentence imposed by the Greene County Circuit Court was commuted by the Governor of the State of Missouri. The first question for determination is when was the proper date for the commencement of the sentence imposed by the Stoddard County Circuit Court. If the sentence was to commence on January 29, 1965, as directed by the sentencing court and as claimed by the appellant, he would now be entitled to release. If the Stoddard County sentence was not to commence running until July 17, 1966, the date on which the Governor of Missouri commuted the Greene County sentence, then the petition for writ of habeas corpus was properly denied, and appellant's present detention would not be unlawful for taking into consideration the three-fourths maximum of any sentence which is served in a "peaceable manner" and making proper allowances for merit time and "blood time" for blood donations, the earliest appellant's Stoddard County sentence could be completed would be March 18, 1968.
Appellant claims that since the Stoddard County sentence specified that the three years imposed were to commence running on January 29, 1965, that date should be the one used in determining his release based on three-fourths time plus credit. The appellee contends that since under Missouri law a second sentence imposed on a convict for commission of a crime while under sentence must run consecutively rather than concurrently with the earlier sentence, the Stoddard County sentence could not commence running until the Greene County sentence was commuted by the Governor on July 17, 1966.
§ 222.020, R.S.Mo., 1959, provides in pertinent part:
"* * * if any convict commits any crime in an institution of the department of corrections, or in any county of this state while under sentence, the court having jurisdiction of criminal offenses in the county shall have jurisdiction of the offense, and the convict may be charged, tried and convicted in like manner as other persons; and in case of conviction, the sentence of the convict shall not commence to run until the expiration of the sentence under which he is held. * * *" (Emphasis...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Starr v. Mandanici
...to judicial discretion") (citing Anderson v. Yungkau, 329 U.S. 482, 485, 67 S.Ct. 428, 91 L.Ed. 436 (1947); Stanfield v. Swenson, 381 F.2d 755, 757 (8th Cir.1967) ("When used in the statutes the word 'shall' is generally regarded as an imperative or mandatory and therefore one which must be......
-
Davis v. Romney
...does not confer discretion but rather commands, the same as if the word "must" were used in its stead. See e. g. Stanfield v. Swenson, 381 F.2d 755 (8th Cir. 1967). Both § 221(d)(2) and § 235 must be read as creating a mandatory duty upon the defendants to employ State laws and local ordina......
-
United States v. Machado
...877-882." Pittman Construction Co. v. Housing Authority of Opelousas, 167 F.Supp. 517, 523 (W.D.La. 1958). See e. g., Stanfield v. Swenson, 381 F.2d 755 (8th Cir. 1967); In re National Mills, 133 F.2d 604 (7th Cir. A mandatory interpretation of Sec. 1604.52(c) is also consistent with the po......
-
St. Bernard's Hosp., Inc. v. Thompson, 3:99CV00398 GH.
...is generally regarded as an imperative or mandatory and therefore one which must be given a compulsory meaning." Stanfield v. Swenson, 381 F.2d 755, 757 (8th Cir.1967). Thus, Congress instructed the Secretary to grant RRC status exactly as stated in Section 4202(b), to all FFY 1991 Addition......