Steinberg v. Police Court of Albany, N. Y., No. 78-3531

CourtUnited States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (6th Circuit)
Writing for the CourtBefore EDWARDS, Chief Judge, MERRITT, Circuit Judge, and PHILLIPS; HARRY PHILLIPS
Citation610 F.2d 449
PartiesMartin B. STEINBERG, Petitioner-Appellant, v. POLICE COURT OF ALBANY, NEW YORK, et al., Respondents-Appellees.
Docket NumberNo. 78-3531
Decision Date14 December 1979

Page 449

610 F.2d 449
Martin B. STEINBERG, Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
POLICE COURT OF ALBANY, NEW YORK, et al., Respondents-Appellees.
No. 78-3531.
United States Court of Appeals,
Sixth Circuit.
Submitted Oct. 8, 1979.
Decided Dec. 14, 1979.

Page 450

Martin B. Steinberg, pro se.

Patrick H. Molloy, U. S. Atty., John M. Compton, Asst. U. S. Atty., Lexington, Ky., for respondents-appellees.

Before EDWARDS, Chief Judge, MERRITT, Circuit Judge, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge.

HARRY PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge.

Petitioner-appellant Martin B. Steinberg, a prisoner in the Federal Correctional Institute, Lexington, Kentucky, appeals from the district court's denial of his application for a writ of habeas corpus. We affirm.

I

In February 1974, the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas sentenced petitioner-appellant Steinberg to a term of seven years' imprisonment. In May 1976, Steinberg was paroled.

A special condition of the parole required Steinberg to "seek outpatient mental therapy while on parole." After his release, Steinberg was treated at Jackson Memorial Hospital in Miami, Florida, first by the Crisis Intervention unit and later by the Lithium Group Clinic. As part of his treatment program, he received medication.

In December 1976, Steinberg left Miami and went to Orlando, Florida, where he rented an automobile. He drove to Albany, New York, where he was arrested for possession of the car, which the rental agency had reported stolen when Steinberg failed to return it. Steinberg entered a plea of guilty to a charge of unauthorized use of a motor vehicle, a lesser offense than possession of a stolen vehicle.

Subsequently, Steinberg was transferred to federal custody. The United States Parole Commission found that he had violated his parole by leaving the Miami area without permission, by ceasing to participate in the Lithium Clinic's outpatient treatment program, and by using a motor vehicle without authorization. The Commission found that the third violation constituted new criminal conduct. Applying re-parole guidelines, 28 C.F.R. § 2.21, the Commission revoked Steinberg's parole and specified that he must serve 24 to 32 months before becoming eligible for re-parole.

Page 451

Steinberg attempted unsuccessfully to withdraw his state court guilty plea and to have the decision of the Parole Commission reversed. His application for a writ of habeas corpus was denied by the district court and he appeals.

II

Steinberg asks for habeas corpus relief from two different judgments. First, he asks this court to overturn his state court conviction on the ground that it is based on an invalid guilty plea. Second, he argues that the Parole Commission's judgment revoking his parole is arbitrary and capricious because it is based on the invalid state court conviction.

Steinberg says his failure to take his medication in December 1976, caused him to lose contact with reality. He claims to have no memory of why he rented a car and went to Albany or what he did before his arrest. Therefore, he contends that he could not be held criminally responsible for stealing the car. Moreover, he says, he was mentally incompetent to plead guilty and his guilty plea, therefore, was invalid. Finally, he argues that he entered a plea of guilty in return for a parole officer's unfulfilled promise that his parole would not be revoked and says that this made his plea involuntary. He now wants to withdraw the guilty plea and stand trial in the Police Court.

Steinberg's purpose in seeking to withdraw the guilty plea is to undercut his parole revocation. Implicit in his pro se request for habeas corpus relief from the Commission's decision is the argument that the alleged errors in his state court conviction invalidate his parole revocation. The premise of that argument is that, if Steinberg could not be held criminally responsible for stealing the car, neither could he be found to have violated his parole. We reject this premise and, accordingly, affirm.

III

We note initially that Steinberg's challenge to the decision to reincarcerate him must fail. The Commission gave three reasons for revoking parole: Steinberg stopped participating in his out-patient treatment program; he left the jurisdiction without permission; and he stole the car. Under the Parole Commission and Reorganization Act, 18 U.S.C. § 4214(d)(1) (1976), it is clear that the Commission may revoke parole if it finds that the parolee has violated a condition of his parole. To justify revocation, it is not necessary that a violation be criminal. Clark v. Stevens, 291 F.2d 388 (6th Cir. 1961); Lewis v. United States Parole Commission, 448 F.Supp. 1327, 1330 (E.D.Mich.1978). See Mack v. McCune, 551 F.2d 251 (10th Cir. 1977). Steinberg's voluntary decision to cease taking his medication and participating in his out-patient treatment program independently was sufficient to justify his parole revocation. See Clark v. Stevens, 291 F.2d 388, 389 (6th Cir. 1961).

The Commission's order that Steinberg serve 24 to 32 months before becoming eligible for re-release presents a more difficult question. 28 C.F.R. § 2.21(a) specifies that if revocation is based on an administrative (non-criminal) parole violation, the parolee ordinarily will be eligible for re-parole within 16 months of the revocation. However, 28 C.F.R. § 2.21(b) states that, if the violation is criminal, eligibility for re-parole is to be determined according to the 28 C.F.R. § 2.20 guidelines for original parole eligibility. Apparently the application of these more stringent guidelines was the basis of the Parole Commission's determination that Steinberg must serve 24 to 32 additional months before becoming eligible for re-parole. The duration of Steinberg's...

To continue reading

Request your trial
34 practice notes
  • Abu Ali v. Ashcroft, No. CIV.A. 04-1258JDB.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. United States District Court (Columbia)
    • December 16, 2004
    ...point to some continuing collateral disability which is the result of the respondent's action. Steinberg v. Police Court of Albany, N.Y., 610 F.2d 449, 453 (6th Cir.1979) (citations There are, in fact, many circumstances in which courts have found actual or constructive custody notwithstand......
  • Banks v. U.S., No. 79-5099
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (6th Circuit)
    • January 30, 1980
    ...probation revocation hearing. United States v. Farmer, supra, 512 F.2d at 162-63. See also Steinberg v. Police Court of Albany, New York, 610 F.2d 449 (6th Cir. To many defendants, however, revocation of probation is of greater significance than the initial trial and sentencing. This was tr......
  • U.S. v. Stine, No. 80-1294
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (3rd Circuit)
    • May 19, 1981
    ...557 F.2d 1002, 1004 (3d Cir. 1977), although the condition itself was not under attack. See also Steinberg v. Police Court of Albany, 610 F.2d 449, 450-51 (6th Cir. 1979) (without discussing constitutionality of condition, Page 844 court upheld parole revocation based on parolee's violation......
  • Zupan v. Brown, No. C 95-00156 CRB.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. Northern District of California
    • March 23, 1998
    ...unlawful search and arrest. See Spencer, ___ U.S. at ___, 118 S.Ct. 978, 140 L.Ed.2d 43; Steinberg v. Police Court of Albany, N. Y., 610 F.2d 449, 453 (6th Cir.1979) (to maintain a habeas action, petitioner must be "in custody" and that custody must be the result of respondent's action from......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
33 cases
  • Abu Ali v. Ashcroft, No. CIV.A. 04-1258JDB.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. United States District Court (Columbia)
    • December 16, 2004
    ...point to some continuing collateral disability which is the result of the respondent's action. Steinberg v. Police Court of Albany, N.Y., 610 F.2d 449, 453 (6th Cir.1979) (citations There are, in fact, many circumstances in which courts have found actual or constructive custody notwithstand......
  • Banks v. U.S., No. 79-5099
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (6th Circuit)
    • January 30, 1980
    ...probation revocation hearing. United States v. Farmer, supra, 512 F.2d at 162-63. See also Steinberg v. Police Court of Albany, New York, 610 F.2d 449 (6th Cir. To many defendants, however, revocation of probation is of greater significance than the initial trial and sentencing. This was tr......
  • U.S. v. Stine, No. 80-1294
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (3rd Circuit)
    • May 19, 1981
    ...557 F.2d 1002, 1004 (3d Cir. 1977), although the condition itself was not under attack. See also Steinberg v. Police Court of Albany, 610 F.2d 449, 450-51 (6th Cir. 1979) (without discussing constitutionality of condition, Page 844 court upheld parole revocation based on parolee's violation......
  • Zupan v. Brown, No. C 95-00156 CRB.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. Northern District of California
    • March 23, 1998
    ...unlawful search and arrest. See Spencer, ___ U.S. at ___, 118 S.Ct. 978, 140 L.Ed.2d 43; Steinberg v. Police Court of Albany, N. Y., 610 F.2d 449, 453 (6th Cir.1979) (to maintain a habeas action, petitioner must be "in custody" and that custody must be the result of respondent's action from......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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