State v. Tahash, 38395
| Decision Date | 01 December 1961 |
| Docket Number | No. 38395,38395 |
| Citation | 261 Minn. 310,112 N.W.2d 357 |
| Parties | STATE of Minnesota ex rel. Charles H. LAMPI, Appellant, v. Ralph H. TAHASH, Acting Warden Minnesota State Prison, Respondent. |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court
When a prisoner in custody of the warden of the State Penitentiary is released on parole, the state does not lose jurisdiction over him even though it temporarily waives its right to custody so that another sovereign may exercise its jurisdiction over him.
Charles H. Lampi, appellant, pro se.
Walter F. Mondale, Atty. Gen., Charles E. Houston, Solicitor Gen., St. Paul, for respondent.
This is an appeal from an order denying relator's petition for a writ of habeas corpus.
The facts upon which petitioner bases his right to a release from custody of the acting warden of our State Penitentiary may be briefly stated.
Petitioner was conditionally released from the Federal Penitentiary at Terre Haute, Indiana, on July 5, 1954. He came to Minnesota and, on August 9, 1954, was charged with having committed the crime of grand larceny in the first degree. He was convicted on his plea of guilty and sentenced to an indeterminate term not exceeding 10 years. On September 23 of that year he was committed to the State Reformatory at St. Cloud and later transferred to the State Penitentiary. On September 11, 1957, he was granted a conditional parole pursuant to a parole agreement which he signed. Among other things, this parole agreement contains the following provision:
'* * * Upon being paroled and released he shall be and remain in the legal custody and under the control of the State Board of Parole and Probation, subject to the rules, regulations, and conditions of this parole as set forth on the reverse side of this agreement.'
The agreement then provides that the parolee will report to his parole agent; that he will abide by the rules and regulations of the State Board of Parole and Probation; and that he understands that he is to remain on parole until the expiration of his sentence unless the board deems it advisable to discharge him at an earlier date.
As a result of his conviction in Minnesota, petitioner's Federal parole was revoked and he was taken to the Federal Penitentiary at Leavenworth to complete his Federal sentence. He was released from that penitentiary on March 1, 1958, and returned to Minnesota. Upon his return here, he was informed by the State Board of Parole that he was required to obey the rules and regulations governing the parole granted him in 1957. He thereafter was contacted by his parole agent at periodic intervals. On July 23, 1958, he was arrested in St. Paul and sentenced on July 26 to a term in the workhouse for the commission of a misdemeanor. As a result of this conviction the parole granted him from the felony sentence was revoked and he was returned to the penitentiary where he has since remained.
In considering this case we have disregarded all technical deficiencies in the petition for the writ of habeas corpus and have examined the entire file and the files of the State Board of Parole in order to ascertain the actual facts. Petitioner's only claim here is that when Minnesota released him to the Federal authorities it lost all jurisdiction over him and could not thereafter require him to complete service of the sentence imposed in August 1954.
Pertinent statutory provisions are Minn.St. 637.01, 637.06, and 637.08. Section 637.01 reads in part:
'When any person is convicted of any felony or crime * * * punishable by imprisonment * * * the person sentenced shall be subject to release on parole and to final discharge by the board of parole and probation * * *.'
Section 637.06 reads in part:
Section 637.08 reads in part:
'* * * when any person upon parole has kept the conditions thereof in such manner and for such period of time as shall satisfy the board that he is reliable and trustworthy, and that he will remain at liberty without violating the law, and that his final release is not incompatible with the welfare of society, then the board shall have power in its discretion to grant to such prisoner a final discharge from confinement under any such sentence, * * *.'
The...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cleaver v. State, 42464
...agents of the State of Minnesota. Petitioner cites no cases in support of his position. However, the case of State ex rel. Lampi v. Tahash, 261 Minn. 310, 313, 112 N.W.2d 357, 359, is an analogous case although it was not decided under the extradition statute. The relator in that case was c......