Tilghman v. Hunter, 3667.
| Decision Date | 21 June 1948 |
| Docket Number | No. 3667.,3667. |
| Citation | 168 F.2d 946 |
| Parties | TILGHMAN v. Walter A. HUNTER, Warden. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Tenth Circuit |
Alex Cheek, of Oklahoma City, Okla., for appellant.
Eugene Davis, Asst. U. S. Atty., of Topeka, Kan., (Randolph Carpenter, U. S. Atty., of Topeka, Kan., on the brief), for appellee.
Before BRATTON and HUXMAN, Circuit Judges, and VAUGHT, District Judge.
W. W. Tilghman, the appellant, appeals from a ruling of the District Court of Kansas denying his petition for a writ of habeas corpus to release him from the custody of the warden of the United States Penitentiary at Leavenworth, Kansas.
The record discloses that the petitioner was convicted and sentenced in the Northern District of Texas on May 12, 1944. He appealed from the judgment and sentence, and on May 27, 1944, the trial court denied bail pending appeal. The petitioner testified that on that date the following proceedings were held in the trial court: "
The petitioner remained in jail from May 12, 1944 until March 5, 1945. The mandate in his appeal was received by the trial court February 8, 1945, and petitioner was delivered to the penitentiary March 5, 1945. Petitioner was given fifteen days credit for time spent in jail prior to the filing of his appeal, and in addition, the time from February 8, 1945 to March 5, 1945. He contends that he should be given credit for 256 days spent in jail pending the outcome of his appeal.
The Rules of Criminal Procedure, which were in effect at the time of the judgment and sentence, provided: 292 U.S. 663.
The new Rules of Criminal Procedure, 18 U.S.C.A. following section 687, went into effect March 21, 1946, and so far as pertinent here, provide:
It is conceded the petitioner made no formal election to enter upon the service of his sentence, as was required under Section V, supra, which was in effect at the time of his conviction and sentence. But he contends that, in view of the court denying bail and the alleged remarks of the court at the time, it was unnecessary to file such an election. The judgment and commitment of the trial court contains no such remarks by the trial court that petitioner contends were made, but contains the following: "Ordered and adjudged that the defendant, having been...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Gorko v. COMMANDING OFFICER, SECOND AF, SHREVEPORT, LA.
...v. United States, 352 U.S. 354, 361, 77 S.Ct. 481, 1 L.Ed.2d 393. 11 Dean v. United States, 8 Cir., 30 F. 2d 523. Cf. Tilghman v. Hunter, 10 Cir., 168 F.2d 946. 12 Gusik v. Schilder, 340 U.S. 128, 131, 71 S.Ct. 149, 95 L.Ed. 13 Art. 44(a), UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. § 844(a). ...
-
People v. Scott, 24822
...1968); United States v. Pruitt, 397 F.2d 502 (7th Cir. 1968); Leyvas v. United States, 371 F.2d 714 (9th Cir. 1967); Tilghman v. Hunter, 168 F.2d 946 (10th Cir. 1948). See also 8A Moore's Federal Practice 38.01(3)(2d ed. 1970); 2 Wright, Federal Practice and Procedure § 632 (1969); and 4 Ba......
-
Davis v. United States, 18861.
...defendant elected to commence service. See Notes of Advisory Committee on Rule accompanying 1948 version of Rule 38; Tilghman v. Hunter, 168 F.2d 946 (10th Cir. 1948); Baker v. United States, 139 F.2d 721 (8th Cir. 1944). Accordingly, Davis is entitled to credit for the time he served in "l......
-
Norris v. United States, 13618.
...having affirmatively elected to commence his sentence, would clearly not be entitled to credit for the time spent in jail. Tilghman v. Hunter, 10 Cir., 168 F.2d 946; Demarois v. Hudspeth, 10 Cir., 99 F.2d 274; U. S. ex rel Steinberg v. Cummings, D.C., 14 F.Supp. 647, affirmed 3 Cir., 85 F.2......