United States v. Myers
Decision Date | 04 March 1966 |
Docket Number | Misc. No. 3218. |
Citation | 251 F. Supp. 773 |
Parties | UNITED STATES of America ex rel. William M. HEACOCK v. David N. MYERS, Superintendent, State Correctional Institution, Graterford, Pennsylvania, and the entire Pa. Board of Parole. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Pennsylvania |
William M. Heacock, pro se.
No appearance for respondents.
According to the allegations of his petition for habeas corpus, relator was sentenced by the Court of Oyer and Terminer of Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania, to a term of three to ten years imprisonment, the maximum to expire on March 25, 1964. At the expiration of his minimum term, relator was paroled. While on parole, he committed another crime, for which he was convicted and sentenced to six months imprisonment. At the expiration of that term but after his original ten year maximum would have expired, relator was returned to prison by the Pennsylvania Board of Parole as a convicted parole violator. He is now serving part of the remaining seven years of his original sentence. He has duly exhausted state remedies, and he brings this petition here.
Relator's principal contentions are that the Parole Board is without authority to recommit a convicted parole violator to prison to serve the remainder of his sentence after the original maximum has expired; that to do so is to extend his maximum unlawfully; that in any event it may not be done in absentia and without counsel; and that if state law permits these practices, it violates the due process, equal protection, double jeopardy and bill of attainder clauses of the Federal Constitution.
There is ample warrant in state law for recommitment of a convicted parole violator to serve the time remaining on the sentence from which he was paroled. By statute:
* * *"61 P.S. § 331.21a (a).
Relator was treated in accordance with this provision. A parolee who commits a crime may be required to serve the balance of his term, regardless of the fact that it would otherwise have expired. Commonwealth ex rel. Wright v. Maroney, 201 Pa.Super. 118, 191 A.2d 866 (1963). "Street time," or the period spent on parole before the criminal violation, is not credited to the sentence to be served upon recommitment. Commonwealth ex rel. O'Leary v. Ashe, 152 Pa.Super. 322, 32 A.2d 36 (1943).
Certainly a state is not precluded by the Federal Constitution from giving paroled convicts an added inducement to "go straight" by retaining the ability to recommit them for crimes they commit while on parole. See Zerbst v. Kidwell, 304 U.S. 359, 363, 58 S.Ct. 872, 82 L.Ed. 1399 (1938). No constitutional question is involved in the Parole Board's failure to give relator credit for time on parole and its adjustment of the expiration date of his new maximum. Miller v. Gladden, 228 F.Supp. 802 (D.Or.1964), aff'd, 341 F.2d 972 (C.A. 9, 1965); Woods v. Steiner, 207 F.Supp. 945 (D.Md.1962). See also United States ex rel. Kloiber v. Myers, 237 F. Supp. 682 (E.D.Pa.1965); United States ex rel. Horne v. Pennsylvania Bd. of Parole, 234 F.Supp. 368 (E.D.Pa.1964).
This practice was before the court in United States ex rel. Long v. Rundle, 327 F.2d 495 (C.A.3, 1964), cert. denied, 377 U.S. 957, 84 S.Ct. 1638, 12 L.Ed.2d 501 (1964). Relator had argued that he should have been permitted to serve the remainder of the sentence from which he was paroled before serving the sentence imposed for the crime committed while on parole. In affirming, per curiam, the dismissal of relator's petition without a hearing, the court gave an answer to that contention which applies equally here:
"The district court properly determined that the question presented was a matter of state law, that this clearly appeared on the face of the petition for habeas corpus and that, therefore, no hearing on the petition need be held." 327 F.2d at 496.
Relator's contention that the recommitment by the Parole Board was an action requiring his appearance with counsel is also lacking in merit. As a matter of state procedure, a "technical violator" (one who violates parole by conduct other than commission of a new crime) "may be recommitted after hearing before the board." 61 P.S. § 331.21a(b). The hearing is informal and summary. Commonwealth ex rel. Hendrickson v. Pennsylvania State Bd. of Parole,...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Commonwealth v. Brown
... ... v. Swenson, 397 U.S. 436, 90 S.Ct. 1189, 25 L.Ed.2d 469 ... (1970), the United States Supreme Court held the federal rule ... of collateral estoppel was embodied in the Fifth ... Burgess v. Lindsey, 395 F.Supp. 404 ... (E.D.Pa.1975); United States ex rel. Heacock v. Myers, 251 ... F.Supp. 773 (D.C.Pa.1966), aff'd., 367 F.2d 583 (3d ... Cir.1966) cert. denied 386 U.S ... ...
-
Loper v. Beto
...hearings are not constitutionally required. Escoe v. Zerbst, 295 U.S. 490 55 S.Ct. 818, 79 L.Ed. 1566 (1935); United States ex rel Heacock v. Myers, 251 F.Supp. 773 (E.D.Penn.1966); Johnson v. Tinsley, 234 F.Supp. 866 (D.Colo.1964). Irrespective of any other consideration, it would appear t......
-
Miles v. Moyle
...against double jeopardy, bills of attainder, cruel and unusual punishment or ex post facto laws. See alsoUnited States ex rel. Heacock v. Myers, 251 F. Supp. 773 (E.D. Pa. 1966), aff'd per curiam 367 F.2d 583 (3d Cir. 1966), cert. denied, 386 U.S. 925, 87 S. Ct. 900, 17 L.Ed.2d 797 (1967); ......
-
Young v. Com. Bd. of Probation and Parole
...682 (E.D.Pa.1965); United States ex rel. Horne v. Pennsylvania Bd. of Parole, 234 F.Supp. 368 (E.D.Pa.1964). U. S. ex rel. Heacock v. Myers, 251 F.Supp. 733, 774 (E.D.1966). The same reasoning that forces the conclusion that a denial of credit does not constitute an enhancement of a sentenc......