Strawderman v. United States, Civ. A. No. 76-0490-R.
| Decision Date | 12 April 1977 |
| Docket Number | Civ. A. No. 76-0490-R. |
| Citation | 436 F. Supp. 503 |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Virginia |
| Parties | William Grant STRAWDERMAN v. UNITED STATES of America. |
William Grant Strawderman, pro se.
Robert W. Jaspen, Asst. U. S. Atty., Richmond, Va., for defendant.
Petitioner, a federal inmate, filed this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 22551 alleging that the Court lacked jurisdiction when it sentenced him on 16 May 1975 for conspiracy to commit bank robbery.
A federal grand jury returned a true bill of indictment against petitioner charging him with various offenses. At that time petitioner was in the custody of the Commonwealth of Virginia confined in the Fairfax County Jail, Fairfax, Virginia. The United States Attorney petitioned the United States District Court for a writ of habeas corpus ad prosequendum (hereinafter referred to as writ) directing State authorities to deliver petitioner to the federal district court in Alexandria, Virginia, on 21 March 1975. The writ issued and the State delivered the defendant for arraignment on the prescribed date. He entered pleas of not guilty to all the counts of the indictment. A trial date was set and defendant was immediately returned to State custody.
Awaiting trial defendant decided to change his plea to guilty. Another writ was issued for petitioner's appearance in federal court on 15 April 1975 at which time he was rearraigned and entered his plea of guilty to the charge for which he now stands convicted. After his plea was accepted in open court he was immediately returned to State custody. Another writ issued for his appearance at sentencing and he was returned to federal court on 16 May 1975 for imposition of sentence.
At no relevant time did the United States cause a detainer to be filed against petitioner, nor did it ever seek custody of petitioner other than by means of the aforementioned writs.
Petitioner contends that since he was returned to State custody after his initial appearance in federal court on 21 March 1975, instead of being retained in the custody of the United States until trial on the federal charges, these charges should be dismissed pursuant to Article IV(e) of the Interstate Agreement on Detainers Act, 18 U.S.C. App. A (hereinafter referred to as Agreement). Article IV(e) provides:
If trial is not had on any indictment, information, or complaint contemplated hereby prior to the prisoner being returned to the original place of imprisonment . . . the indictment shall not be of any further force and effect, and the court shall enter an order dismissing the same with prejudice.
This Court is in agreement with the argument in respondents brief which contends that petitioner's guilty plea precludes the court from resolving the above issue.
In Tollett v. Henderson, 411 U.S. 258 at p. 267, 93 S.Ct. 1602 at p. 1608, 36 L.Ed.2d 235 (1973) the Supreme Court in its majority opinion stated:
A guilty plea represents a break in the chain of events which has preceded it in a criminal process. When a criminal defendant has solemnly admitted in open court that he is in fact guilty of the offense with which he is charged he may not thereafter raise independent claims relating to the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Christian v. United States
...States v. Scallion, 548 F.2d 1168, 1174 (5th Cir. 1977); Gray v. Benson, 443 F.Supp. 1284, 1293 (D.Kan.1978); Strawderman v. United States, 436 F.Supp. 503 (E.D.Va. 1977); Neville v. Friedman, 67 Ill.2d 488, 367 N.E.2d 1341 (1977), cert. denied, 437 U.S. 903, 98 S.Ct. 3088, 57 L.Ed.2d 1132 ......
-
Mars v. United States
... ... UNITED STATES of America, Respondent ... Crim. A. No. 4-82908. Civ. A. No. 7-70165 ... United States District Court, E. D. Michigan, S. D ... December 18, 1978.463 ... In Strawderman v. United States, 436 F.Supp. 503, 504 (E.D.Va.1977), the court held that an IAD claim was not a ... ...
-
Gray v. Benson
...constitutional right of the sort which can be waived only under the strict standard of Johnson v. Zerbst, supra.1 Strawderman v. United States, 436 F.Supp. 503 (E.D.Va.1977); See also United States v. Williams, 544 F.2d 1215 (4th Cir. 1976) (right to two counsel under 18 U.S.C. § 3005). As ......
-
Gray v. Benson
...v. Scallion, supra, at 1170; United States v. Ford, supra, at 742; United States v. Mauro, supra, at 591, n. 3; Strawderman v. United States, 436 F.Supp. 503 (E.D.Va.1977); United States v. Randall, 429 F.Supp. 18, 20 (D.D.C. 1977); Enright v. United States, 434 F.Supp. 1056 (S.D.N.Y.1977).......