State v. Rigg
| Decision Date | 17 July 1959 |
| Docket Number | No. 37708,37708 |
| Citation | 98 N.W.2d 243,256 Minn. 241 |
| Parties | STATE of Minnesota ex rel. Floyd LUTZ, Appellant, v. Douglas C. RIGG, Warden, Minnesota State Prison, Respondent. |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court.
1. Where a prisoner who has been convicted of a felony and placed on probation violates the terms of his probation by leaving the state, he is in no position to subsequently take advantage of his own wrong in being outside of the state so as to make the claim that he was illegally apprehended and wrongfully imprisoned.
2. The granting of parole in this state does not wipe out the judgment of conviction, but merely suspends its operation by remitting for the time being the confinement until the end of the term or until a final discharge is granted and prior to the occurrence of these events, the prisoner is subject, for breach of condition, to be taken into custody and undergo actual imprisonment as though the parole had not been granted.
3. It is well established that the writ of habeas corpus will issue only upon a prima facie showing of illegal imprisonment; that a writ will not issue where the prisoner is imprisoned under lawful authority.
Floyd Lutz, pro se.
Miles Lord, Atty. Gen., Charles E. Houston, Sol. Gen., St. Paul, for respondent.
The relator sought a writ of habeas corpus directed to the warden of the Minnesota State Prison, alleging that he was unlawfully imprisoned therein. The district court denied his petition and he now appeals to this court.
It appears that the relator is confined in the Minnesota State Prison pursuant to a valid sentence for a term of not less than 15 nor more than 20 years and that he is being held pursuant to a warrant of commitment issued December 4, 1933. The crime for which he was sentenced was that of rape. The Minnesota State Board of Parole in 1940 granted him a parole. Relator violated the conditions of his parole by leaving the state and by the commission of another rape in the State of Texas.
On or about August 27, 1947, the district attorney of Tarrant County, Fort Worth, Texas, notified the Minnesota State Board of Parole by telegram saying: 'We have your man Lutz here in jail at Fort Worth, Texas, and you can have him upon your arrival here.' The said district attorney was then notified by the said State Board of Parole that they had made three trips to Texas for this man called Robert Leonard, but better known here as Fred Lutz. The board stated: Relator was sentenced for the crime of rape at Fort Worth, Texas, in February 1948 to 10 years' confinement in the Texas penitentiary. On January 9, 1954, relator was taken into custody by an officer of the Minnesota State Board of Parole and returned to and confined in the state prison at Stillwater. Relator now asserts that the State of Minnesota relinquished all its original jurisdiction over him when they notified the Texas authorities that 'You have him now, keep him as we don't want him' and failed to return him to Minnesota after being notified by the district attorney's office in Fort Worth, Texas, that he was being held in custody in that city.
Relator's petition presents the following questions for decision: (1) Did the Minnesota State Board of Parole lose its jurisdiction over relator? (2) Is the relator now being wrongfully confined in the Minnesota State Prison?
1--2. Certain sections of the Minnesota statutes set forth the authority of the parole board. M.S.A. § 637.01 reads as follows:
'When any person is convicted of any felony or crime committed after the passage of sections 637.01 to 637.13, punishable by imprisonment in the state prison or the state reformatory, except treason or murder in the first or second degree, as defined by law, the court in imposing sentence shall not fix a definite term of imprisonment, but may fix in the sentence the maximum term of such imprisonment, and shall sentence every such person to the state reformatory or to the state prison, as the case may require, and the person sentenced shall be subject to release on parole and to final discharge by the board of parole and probation as hereinafter provided * * *.'
Section 637.06 reads in part as follows:
* * *'
Section 637.08 reads as follows:
'It shall be the duty of the state board of parole and probation to keep in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Byrnes
...v. Hollowell, 197 Iowa 927, 932, 933, 196 N.W. 91, 93, 198 N.W. 81; Lint v. Bennett, 251 Iowa 1193, 104 N.W.2d 564; State v. Rigg, 256 Minn. 241, 98 N.W.2d 243; Furlow v. Tinsley, 151 Colo. 280, 377 P.2d 132; Anderson v. Corall, 263 U.S. 193, 44 S.Ct. 43, 68 L.Ed. 247; Hodge v. Markley, 7 C......
-
State v. Ward
...or anything, was told he was on his own and was not given any conditions to comply with for the next four days. State ex rel. Lutz v. Rigg, 256 Minn. 241, 98 N.W.2d 243 (1959), is inapplicable to Ward's case, as the following facts are clear in Lutz: Lutz was imprisoned in 1933 for a 15-20 ......
-
State ex rel Ahern v. Young, 40105
...differently in granting credit for time served on parole while denying it for probation. We are not unmindful of State ex rel. Lutz v. Rigg, 256 Minn. 241, 98 N.W.2d 243, which holds that, upon revocation of parole, the original sentence may be imposed and defendant shall receive no credit ......
-
State v. Tahash, 38395
...for a writ of habeas corpus and that the trial court correctly held that such petition should be denied. Affirmed. 1 State ex rel. Lutz v. Rigg, 256 Minn. 241, 98 N.W.2d 243.2 See, also, United States ex rel. Lombardo v. McDonnell (7 Cir.) 153 F.2d 919; Rosenthal v. Hunter (10 Cir.) 164 F.2......