Travis v. Lockhart, 90-2126
Decision Date | 11 February 1991 |
Docket Number | No. 90-2126,90-2126 |
Citation | 925 F.2d 1095 |
Parties | Vernon Dale TRAVIS, Appellant, v. A.L. LOCKHART, Director, Arkansas Department of Correction, Appellee. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit |
Jack Lassiter, Little Rock, Ark., for appellant.
Jack Gillean, Asst. Atty. Gen., Little Rock, Ark., for appellee.
Before McMILLIAN, FAGG and MAGILL, Circuit Judges.
Vernon Dale Travis appeals from a final order entered in the District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas dismissing his 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2254 petition for writ of habeas corpus on the merits. For reversal, Travis argues the district court erred in failing to credit him with jail time served prior to his 1982 murder conviction. For the reasons discussed below, we vacate the order of the district court and remand the case with directions to dismiss the habeas petition on the ground that it raised only a matter of state concern.
In 1974 Travis was convicted of murder and sentenced to life imprisonment. On August 28, 1981, while serving this sentence, he was arrested and charged with the murder of a fellow inmate. On August 16, 1982, Travis pleaded guilty to the inmate murder and was sentenced to a term of 20 years imprisonment, such term to be served concurrently with his life sentence. On August 15, 1986, his 1974 murder conviction was vacated; the state did not retry him.
In September 1986 Travis filed a petition for writ of mandamus in state court seeking 353 days of credit toward his 1982 murder sentence, under Ark.Code Ann. Sec. 5-4-404 (1987) (formerly Ark.Stat.Ann. Sec. 41-904 (repl.1977)), which provides if a defendant is held in custody for conduct that results in a sentence to imprisonment, the court shall credit the time spent in custody against the sentence. Travis did not advise the court that his 1974 conviction had been vacated. In June 1987 the Arkansas Supreme Court denied Travis's mandamus petition on the ground that Sec. 5-4-505 was inapplicable because he was incarcerated because of charges or criminal conduct other than the one on which he sought credit. Travis v. State, 292 Ark. 463, 730 S.W.2d 501, 502 (1987). The opinion of the court did not refer to the fact that his 1974 conviction had been vacated.
In September 1987 Travis filed pro se the instant habeas petition seeking the 353 days of credit. The state filed a motion to dismiss for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. Travis responded that he had filed a state mandamus action for the requested relief as evidenced in Travis v. State. With the assistance of appointed counsel, Travis filed a pretrial in which he stated, inter alia, that in Travis v. State, the state supreme court did not refer to the fact that his 1974 conviction had been vacated and apparently did not consider this fact. Travis subsequently filed a motion for summary judgment on the ground that Sec. 5-4-404 created a liberty interest entitling him to the claimed credit. Specifically, he argued that while his 353-day incarceration prior to the 1982 sentence had originally served a dual purpose, after the 1974 conviction had been vacated, the incarceration served only as the equivalent of pretrial detention for the inmate murder charge.
Relying on Nash v. Black, 781 F.2d 665 (8th Cir.1986) ( ), the magistrate judge concluded that Travis was properly denied the credit when he was sentenced in 1982, that Sec. 5-4-404 did not provide for a retroactive award of credit due to changed circumstances and, thus, that Travis had no liberty interest by virtue of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Ryan v. Clarke
...this claim, (filing 13 at p.3), thereby waiving any procedural defense to reviewing the merits in this habeas action. Travis v. Lockhart, 925 F.2d 1095, 1097 (8th Cir.1991). Therefore, it is now properly before the court for habeas review. 15. I note that this alleged mis-focus by the Nebra......
-
Hammond v. Commissioner of Correction
...is a creature of statute and that, as a general rule, such credit is not constitutionally required.24 See, e.g., Travis v. Lockhart, 925 F.2d 1095, 1097 (8th Cir. 1991); Boutwell v. Nagle, 861 F.2d 1530, 1532 (11th Cir. 1988), cert. denied, 490 U.S. 1099, 109 S. Ct. 2452, 104 L. Ed. 2d 1006......
-
Haskell v. Berghuis
...status is a matter . . . of state concern only." Howard v. White, 76 Fed.Appx. 52, 53 (6th Cir.2003), citing Travis v. Lockhart, 925 F.2d 1095, 1097 (8th Cir.1991); Branan v. Booth, 861 F.2d 1507, 1508 (11th Cir.1988). "Federal habeas corpus relief does not lie for errors of state law . . .......
-
Bable v. Corbin
...credit for time served is a matter of state concern, which a federal habeas court cannot reexamine. See, e.g., Travis v. A.L. Lockhart, 925 F.2d 1095 (8th Cir. 1991) (holding that a claim for failure to receive pre-sentence jail time credit was "not a proper function of a federal court unde......