Story v. Rives

• Decision Date: 04 April 1938
• Docket Number: No. 7035.,7035.
• Citation: 68 App. DC 325,97 F.2d 182
• Parties: STORY v. RIVES, Superintendent of Asylum and Jail.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit

68 App. DC 325, 97 F.2d 182 (1938)

STORY v. RIVES, Superintendent of Asylum and Jail.

No. 7035.

United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia.

Decided April 4, 1938.

Rehearing Denied May 9, 1938.

James J. Laughlin and Ralph A. Potts, both of Washington, D. C., for appellant.

Leslie C. Garnett, U. S. Atty., and John J. Wilson, Asst. U. S. Atty., both of Washington, D. C., for appellee.

Before GRONER, STEPHENS, and MILLER, Associate Justices.

MILLER, Associate Justice.

This appeal comes to us from an order of the District Court dismissing a petition for a writ of habeas corpus and discharging the writ which had been theretofore issued and directed to appellee Rives in his capacity as Superintendent of the Washington Asylum and Jail.

On January 20, 1933, appellant pleaded guilty to the crime of robbery in the Supreme Court (now the District Court of the United States for the District of Columbia); was sentenced to serve a term of from two years and seven months to five years; and thereupon was committed to the District of Columbia Reformatory at Lorton, Virginia. Subsequently, he was transferred to the United States Northeastern Penitentiary and thereafter to the United States Hospital for Defective Delinquents at Springfield, Missouri.

On September 30, 1936, having served the maximum sentence imposed, less deductions allowed for good conduct, appellant was conditionally released under the Act of March 3, 1875, 18 Stat. 479, as amended by the Act of June 21, 1902, 32 Stat. 397, 18 U.S.C.A. §§ 710-713, the pertinent parts of which appear in the margin.¹

On November 5, 1936, the United States Board of Parole, upon information that he had violated the conditions of his release, caused a warrant to be issued for the retaking of appellant. Several days later, on November 12, 1936, appellant was indicted for the commission of another crime, and, after waiving a jury trial, was convicted and sentenced by the District Court of the United States for the District of Columbia to nine months' imprisonment in the Washington Asylum and Jail. The warrant of the Parole Board was filed in the office of appellee as a detainer, thereby preventing the release of appellant after the service of his nine months' sentence. It was from custody under this warrant that appellant sought release by a writ of habeas corpus. The important question for decision, therefore, is whether the United States Board of Parole had authority to issue its warrant under the circumstances of this case. In our opinion it did.

According to the provisions of the Act of June 29, 1932, 47 Stat. 381, 18 U.S.C.A. § 716b, any prisoner sentenced after that date and who is not paroled but instead is released after serving the term for which he was sentenced, less deductions allowed therefrom for good conduct, is required to "be treated as if released on parole." Prisoners released by the Parole Board, 18 U. S.C.A. §§ 723a, 723b may be retaken for violation of the conditions of parole on warrants issued by it, or by any one of its members. 18 U.S.C.A. § 723c. In that event, the unexpired term of imprisonment of any such prisoner begins to run from the date of his return to the institution, and the time he was on parole does not diminish the time he was originally sentenced to serve. 18 U.S.C.A. § 723c.

Although release following the allowance of deductions for good conduct, as provided by statute, cannot be denied a prisoner,² nevertheless its granting in the first instance is in the nature of a privilege bestowed by the legislature (Aderhold v. Hudson, 5 Cir., 84 F.2d 559), and, consequently, is subject to all conditions properly attached thereto. By section 4 of the Act of June 29, 1932, 47 Stat. 381, 18 U.S. C.A. § 716b, Congress attached as a condition to the early release of any prisoner, on account of good conduct allowances, the limitation that he should be "subject to all provisions of law relating to the parole of United States prisoners." In other words, he is thereby placed under the supervision of the United States Board of Parole and becomes a ward of such Board automatically upon release.

Without more, the law as just stated is sufficient to establish the authority of the United States Board of Parole and the validity of its warrant in the present case. Appellant contends, however, (1) that as he was originally convicted in the District of Columbia he could not be lawfully incarcerated in a Federal penitentiary; (2) that he is subject exclusively to the parole laws of the District of Columbia, and that those laws give to the United States Board of Parole no authority to issue a warrant for his retaking; hence, that his detention under such a warrant is illegal and properly subject to attack by writ of habeas corpus. Both contentions are without merit. All persons convicted of offenses against the United States are committed to the custody of the Attorney General of the United States, who may designate the places of original confinement and order transfers from one institution to another. Act of May 14, 1930, 46 Stat. 326, § 7, 18 U.S.C.A. § 753f; Bailey v. United States, 10 Cir., 74 F.2d 451. A robbery committed in the District of Columbia is a crime against the United States, and, consequently, the offender comes within the provisions of the conditional release statute.³

The cases cited by appellant⁴ are not in conflict with this well established view. Those cases do not involve violations of criminal statutes; all that they hold is that the laws of the District of Columbia, as enacted by Congress and embodied in its Code, are not general laws of the United States, having operation throughout the nation, but special enactments applicable only to the District of Columbia. The problem herein involved is neither referred to nor discussed.

In Tyner v. United States, 23 App.D.C. 324, 360, we held that the violation of a criminal law may constitute an offense against the United States although the act committed was a crime only in the District of Columbia. That the decision is sound we have no doubt.⁵ Moreover, in Aderhold v. Lee, 5 Cir., 68 F.2d 824, certiorari denied 292 U.S. 633, 54 S.Ct. 718, 78 L.Ed. 1486, and Bracey v. Hill, D.C.M.D.Pa., 11 F.Supp. 148, affirmed, 3 Cir., 77 F.2d 970, the power of the Attorney General over the place of confinement of District of Columbia prisoners was sustained. The court said in the latter case (page 149): "The authority of the Attorney General to transfer prisoners from the District of Columbia to other penal institutions has existed and has been exercised and recognized for a long time prior to the Indeterminate Sentence and Parole Act. This act, as amended section 10, enacted June 5, 1934, D.C. Code Supp. II, 1935, § 459, is not inconsistent therewith, but in fact recognizes and aids the exercise of that authority." Furthermore, it is provided by statute, Act of March 3, 1915, 38 Stat. 869, 18 U.S.C.A. § 704, that "The cost of the care and custody of District of Columbia convicts in any Federal penitentiary shall be charged against the District of Columbia * * *." This section impliedly recognizes the fact that District of Columbia prisoners may be incarcerated in Federal institutions. Nor is section 402, title 6, D.C.Code 1929, inconsistent with this position, as appellant contends, or with the statute in question.⁶ Section 402, so far as applicable, provides: "Whenever any person has been convicted of crime in any court in the District of Columbia and sentenced to imprisonment for more than one year by the court, the imprisonment during the term for which he may have been sentenced or during the residue of said term may be in some suitable jail or penitentiary or in the reformatory of the District of Columbia; and it shall be sufficient for the court to sentence the defendant to imprisonment in the penitentiary without specifying the particular prison or the reformatory of the District of Columbia and the imprisonment shall be in such penitentiary, jail, or the reformatory of the District Columbia as the Attorney General shall from time to time designate: * * *" (Italics supplied.)

In support of his contention that he is subject exclusively to the parole laws of the District of Columbia, appellant relies particularly upon two Acts of Congress affecting prisoners convicted in the District. The first was approved July 15, 1932 — subsequent to the date of the Act of June 29, 1932, 47 Stat. 381, 18 U.S.C.A. § 716b, which subjected all United States prisoners to the supervision of the United States Board of Parole. The Act of July 15, 1932 created a Board of Indeterminate Sentence and Parole for the penal institutions of the District of Columbia, and transferred to it all powers of the United States Board of Parole over "prisoners confined in the penal institutions of the District of Columbia."⁷ The second act upon which appellant relies was passed in June, 1934, amending the Act of July 15, 1932 so as to give to the United States Board of Parole "the same power and authority over prisoners convicted in the District of Columbia of crimes against the United States and now or hereafter confined in any United States penitentiary or prison (other than the penal institutions of the District of Columbia) as is vested in the Board of Indeterminate Sentence and Parole over prisoners confined in the penal institutions of the District of Columbia."⁸

Appellant contends that the effect of these two acts — July 15, 1932 and June 5, 1934 — was to express a legislative intent that no prisoner convicted in the District of Columbia should be subjected to the supervision of the United States Board of Parole under the provisions of section 4 of the Act of June 29, 1932, 18 U.S.C.A. § 716b, pertaining to the release of prisoners for good conduct. Such an intent is neither expressed nor implied in either of the Acts involved.

It will be noted that (1) these two acts relate exclusively to the parole of...