Truesdell v. United States, 19146.

Decision Date25 September 1968
Docket NumberNo. 19146.,19146.
Citation400 F.2d 859
PartiesKenneth James TRUESDELL, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit

Kenneth James Truesdell, pro se.

Asher E. Schroeder, U. S. Atty., and Gene R. Krekel, Asst. U. S. Atty., Sioux City, Iowa, for appellee.

Before MATTHES, GIBSON and BRIGHT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from the order of the United States District Court denying appellant's motion filed pursuant to Rule 35, F.R.Crim.P., to correct an alleged illegal sentence.

The appellant is serving concurrent sentences of fifteen years imposed on his pleas of guilty to entering two federally-insured banks — one on February 3, 1962, the other on February 23, 1962 — with intent to commit larceny therein in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a). Appellant was represented by counsel and did not question the sentences at the time they were imposed.

The judgments entered on April 23, 1962, by Honorable John W. Delehant provided:

"that the execution and service of the sentence herein pronounced and imposed shall commence forthwith upon the release in any manner of the defendant, Kenneth James Truesdell from the Iowa Men\'s Penitentiary at Fort Madison, Iowa, under the sentence to imprisonment pronounced and imposed upon him and by the District Court of the State of Iowa, within and for the County of Cerro Gordo, on April 12, 1962, and the surrender thereupon of the defendant, Kenneth James Truesdell to the Attorney General of the United States or his authorized representative for the execution and service of the sentence herein pronounced and imposed."

Although it is not clear from the record, appellant states in his brief, without contradiction, that he was released from state custody on November 21, 1964, and incarcerated that day in the federal penitentiary at Leavenworth, Kansas.

Appellant presents two theories to support his claim of illegality of the judgments of conviction: (1) that they are void for indefiniteness because of the provision above quoted; (2) that the court lacked jurisdiction to sentence him because prior to the date of the sentencing he had been delivered to Iowa state authorities in order that he could be tried in an Iowa state court on another charge. There is nothing either new or novel in these contentions.

It is established law that a federal court may with propriety impose a sentence that shall commence forthwith on the release of the defendant from a state penal institution. Lavoie v. United States, 310 F.2d 117 (1st Cir. 1962); United States ex rel. Lombardo v. McDonnell, 153 F.2d 919 (7th Cir. 1946); Kirk v. Squier, 150 F.2d 3 (9th Cir. 1945). Cf. Hart v. United States, 259 F.2d 646 (8th Cir. 1958), cert. denied, 359 U.S. 918, 79 S.Ct. 595, 3 L.Ed.2d 579 (1959). Such a...

To continue reading

Request your trial
5 cases
  • Dixon v. Blackensee
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York
    • June 11, 2019
    ...does not lose jurisdiction over a federal prisoner if it arranges to produce a prisoner in state court. See e.g., Truesdell v. United States, 400 F.2d 859, 860 (8th Cir. 1968); Murray v. United States, 334 F.2d 616, 617 (9th Cir. 1964); United States ex rel. William V. Fitzpatrick, 299 F. S......
  • Lovell v. Arnold
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Middle District of Pennsylvania
    • March 13, 1975
    ...United States v. Bloombaum, D. Md.1966, 261 F.Supp. 814; United States v. Gladding, S.D.N.Y.1966, 265 F.Supp. 850; Truesdell v. United States, 8 Cir. 1968, 400 F.2d 859; Derengowski v. U. S. Marshal, 8 Cir. 1967, 377 F.2d 223. Moreover, a federal court may not interfere in an ongoing state ......
  • Brooks v. United States, 19965.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit
    • April 8, 1970
    ...sole discretion whether the petitioner's sentence should run consecutively or concurrently with the state sentence. Truesdell v. United States, 400 F.2d 859 (8 Cir. 1968); Pegram v. United States, 361 F.2d 820 (8 Cir. 1966). Of course, a concurrent sentence under these circumstances can onl......
  • Transportation of Federal Prisoners to State Courts Pursuant to Writs of Habeas Corpus
    • United States
    • Opinions of the Office of Legal Counsel of the Department of Justice
    • July 25, 1980
    ... ... No. 80-92 United States Department of Justice July 25, 1980 ... Larry ... L ... Clark, 451 F.2d 1005, 1006 (5th Cir. 1971); ... Truesdell v. United States, 400 F.2d 859, 860 (8th ... Cir. 1968); Murray v ... ...
  • 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