United States v. Ragen
| Decision Date | 11 January 1947 |
| Docket Number | No. 9184.,9184. |
| Citation | 158 F.2d 644 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES ex rel. HUNKE v. RAGEN, Warden. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit |
George F. Barrett, Atty. Gen., and Raymond Sarnow, Asst. Atty. Gen. (William C. Wines, Asst. Atty. Gen., of counsel), for appellant.
William Hunke, pro se.
Before MAJOR and KERNER, Circuit Judges, and LINDLEY, District Judge.
Respondent appeals from an order granting a discharge to the relator William Hunke upon his petition for a writ of habeas corpus.
The facts are undisputed. The relator, after being convicted in the criminal court of Cook County, Illinois, on June 25, 1920, of the crime of robbery while armed, was sentenced to a term of ten years to life. The legality of this conviction is not questioned. After escaping from the penitentiary on November 15, 1924, the relator was again apprehended and returned to the institution where he remained until June 9, 1931 when he was paroled upon the condition that he would commit no crime and would not depart from Illinois.
On February 16, 1934 the relator was arrested in Illinois upon a fugitive warrant from the state of Wisconsin. Extradition having been awarded, he was removed to Wisconsin where, on May 26, 1934, he was found guilty and sentenced to serve from one to seven years upon a charge of assault and robbery and from fifteen to twenty-five years upon a charge of burglary with explosives. On October 10, 1944, the relator, having been granted parole by the state of Wisconsin, was taken in custody in Wisconsin by Illinois officers and returned to the Illinois State Penitentiary. After a hearing, the Division of Correction duly found and determined that he was a parole violator and he has since that time been confined upon his original sentence and upon the determination that he was a parole violator.
The relator's contention is that when the Illinois authorities relinquished him to the state of Wisconsin for prosecution in the latter state, they thereby surrendered and effectually ended their jurisdiction over him. Therefore, says relator, his reconfinement in the state penitentiary was beyond the jurisdiction of the state of Illinois.
The question of whether Illinois lost jurisdiction over the relator is to be determined by the law of that state. In the case of People ex rel. Barrett v. Bartley, 383 Ill. 437, 50 N.E.2d 517, 520, 147 A.L.R. 935, the Supreme Court held that where a prisoner is actually confined in the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. Ragen
...Bennett, 153 F.2d 102, this court renewed the announcement in Whitten v. Bennett, supra. We recently pointed out in United States ex rel. Hunke v. Ragen, 158 F.2d 644, 645, that under People v. Bartley, 383 Ill. 437, 50 N.E. 2d 517, 147 A.L.R. 935, there was no loss of jurisdiction by permi......
-
State ex rel. Gegenfurtner v. Granquist
...principle that habeas corpus should be denied in a situation such as that here involved are Rau v. McCorkle, supra; United States ex rel. Hunke v. Ragen (7 Cir.) 158 F.2d 644; United States ex rel. Moulthrope v. Matus (D.Conn.) 127 F.Supp. 282; United States ex rel. Palmer v. Ragen (7 Cir.)......
-
Thompson v. Bannan
...court said, if the prisoner had actually been free on parole at the time he was surrendered to the other state. See United States ex rel. Hunke v. Ragan, Warden, 158 F.2d 644 (C.A. Finally, counsel for appellant says that he could not be returned unless Michigan had made a reservation to th......
-
Rider v. McLeod, A-12534
...Whitten v. Bennett, 7 Cir., 141 F.2d 295; People ex rel. Ross v. Becker, 382 Ill. 404, 414, 47 N.E.2d 475, 480; United States ex rel. Hunke v. Ragen, 7 Cir., 158 F.2d 644, 645.* Now 18 U.S.C.A. § ...