United States v. Carey
| Decision Date | 10 May 1943 |
| Docket Number | No. 8241.,8241. |
| Citation | 135 F.2d 205 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES ex rel. PARKER v. CAREY, Sheriff of Cook County. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit |
Wm. Scott Stewart, of Chicago, Ill., for appellant.
Thomas J. Courtney and James V. Cunningham, both of Chicago, Ill. (Edward E. Wilson and George McMahon, Asst. State's Attys., both of Chicago, Ill., of counsel), for appellee.
Before EVANS, MAJOR, and MINTON, Circuit Judges.
The petitioner-appellant was convicted of a felony on April 22, 1939 in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. He was denied bail, and the United States Marshal took him into custody and placed him in the Cook County, Illinois, Jail to await transfer to the Federal Penitentiary. While the petitioner was in jail, the Marshal permitted him to be taken into the Criminal Court of Cook County to be tried on an indictment pending there. The Marshal accompanied him into the State Court while the trial continued, and kept him confined to the Cook County Jail during the progress of the trial.
On May 11, 1939 a judgment of conviction was rendered against him in the State Court. On the same date a stay of mittimus was entered until July 11, 1939. The petitioner, who was under bond in the State Court, was surrendered by his bondsmen on May 25, 1939. On the same day the Marshal took him to the United States Penitentiary at Leavenworth, to which he had been sentenced to serve for two years. The State Court had sentenced him to a year in jail. The petitioner served over a year in the Federal Penitentiary. When he came out, the State authorities arrested him and lodged him in jail under the judgment of conviction of May 11, 1939.
The petitioner claimed that since the judgment of the State Court did not provide that his sentence should run consecutively to the Federal sentence, it therefore ran concurrently, and that he served both sentences while in the Federal Penitentiary.
The judgment of conviction in the State Court was appealed to the Appellate and the Supreme Courts of Illinois, both of which affirmed. People v. Parker, 310 Ill. App. 307, 34 N.E.2d 110; People v. Moran, 378 Ill. 461, 38 N.E.2d 760. The Supreme Court of the United States denied certiorari. Parker v. Illinois, 316 U.S. 665, 62 S. Ct. 945, 86 L.Ed. 1741. The legality of the judgment of conviction in the State Court is not challenged.
In order to test the proposition of whether his sentence in the State Court ran concurrently with his sentence in the Federal Court and whether he had therefore served the sentence imposed by the State Court, the petitioner filed a petition for habeas corpus in the State Court against the respondent, who was the Sheriff of Cook County, Illinois, and had him in custody. The lower court denied his contention, and dismissed the petition, and the Supreme Court of Illinois affirmed the lower court. The Supreme Court of the United States denied certiorari. Thereupon, the petitioner filed a petition for habeas corpus in the District Court of the United States for the Northern District of Illinois. The District Court, upon an agreed statement of facts and without opinion, refused to discharge him, and remanded him to the Sheriff.
The petitioner appeals, and contends here, as he did in the State Court, that his sentences ran concurrently, that he has served his time under the State judgment, and that he is unlawfully detained by the Sheriff in violation of his rights under the Fourteenth Amendment.
As we said before, this question had been presented to the courts of the State of Illinois, and they had decided against the petitioner. The Supreme Court of the United States has the power to review such judgments of the highest court of the State of Illinois, and declined to do so. The District Court has no power to review on writ of error or certiorari the judgments of the courts of Illinois, and we have no greater jurisdiction than the District Court. The District Court does have the power to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Castaneda v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County
...courts (court of appeals and district court) do not have jurisdiction to review action of the state courts. (United States ex rel. Parker v. Carey, 7 Cir., 135 F.2d 205, 206; cert. denied, 320 U.S. 755, 64 S.Ct. 61, 88 L.Ed. 449; Cooper v. Hutchinson (D.C.N.J.), 88 F.Supp. 774, People v. Ca......
-
Cooper v. Hutchinson
...Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413, 44 S.Ct. 149, 68 L.Ed. 362; In re Edmonds, 77 F2d 765, 22 C.C.P.A., Patents, 1256; U. S. ex rel. Parker v. Carey, 7 Cir., 135 F. 2d 205; Emmons v. Smitt, D.C., 58 F.Supp. 869, affirmed, 6 Cir., 149 F.2d 869, certiorari denied, 326 U.S. 746, 66 S.Ct. 59, 90 ......
-
Ex parte Ray
...Wilson, 5 Cir., 131 F.2d 1; Kramer v. State of Nevada, 9 Cir., 112 F.2d 417; Jones v. Dowd, 7 Cir., 128 F.2d 331; United States ex rel. Parker v. Carey, 7 Cir., 135 F.2d 205. Petitioner contends that exceptional circumstances are presented herein which should lead the court to exercise its ......
-
United States v. Baldi, M-1408.
...Court of the United States the legality of his detention, by employing the process of two different courts." See United States ex rel. Parker v. Carey, 7 Cir., 135 F.2d 205, 207, certiorari denied 320 U.S. 755, 64 S.Ct. 61, 88 L.Ed. Accordingly, it is the law that where remedies are availab......