United States v. Williams, Cr. No. 12327
| Decision Date | 10 January 1955 |
| Docket Number | Cr. No. 12327,12342. |
| Citation | 127 F. Supp. 420 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America v. Regis WILLIAMS. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Pennsylvania |
No appearance in case.
This petition for habeas corpus is premised upon the thesis that the court illegally increased petitioner's sentence.
The petition is loosely drawn without aid of counsel. In view of the fact that petitioner is confined outside the limits of the Western District, and that the United States District Court in New Haven, Connecticut, relegated petitioner for relief to this district, I shall treat the petition as a motion to vacate and set aside judgment and sentence. 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255.
Relief under the statutory section invoked may be granted where it appears that there has been such a denial or infringement of the constitutional rights of the petitioner as to render the sentence vulnerable to collateral attack. U. S. v. Riccardi, 3 Cir., 188 F.2d 416; U. S. v. Gallagher, 3 Cir., 183 F.2d 342.
The issues posed relate entirely to a question of law, and no need or requirement exists to have petitioner present for purpose of testifying. Brown v. U. S., 6 Cir., 212 F.2d 589.
On July 2, 1946, upon petitioner's entry of a plea of guilty to a charge of mail theft and forgery of two checks, one in the amount of $31.17 and the other in the amount of $15.59, sentence was imposed for confinement in a penitentiary for a period of twenty-four months.
At time of sentence, I stated that the serving of the sentence presupposed the limitation of confinement to a twenty-four month period.
I had categorically stated that if the state authorities of New York, who had lodged a detainer against petitioner, were to see fit to incarcerate him for an extended period as a result of his parole violation, I would exercise my discretion to reduce said sentence.
When I was advised upon the expiration of the sentence imposed by this court petitioner would be required to serve a substantial part of eight years which he owed to the state of New York as a result of his parole violation, I modified said sentence by order of August 27, 1946, whereby the sentence of July 2, 1946 was revoked, and defendant was released on probation for a period of five years. By the imposition of this sentence, I intended and believed the release of the defendant on probation and eliminating the necessity of penal confinement, would amount to a reduction of the sentence imposed.
However, upon re-examination and further considered judgment of this order, it was my observation that the court...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Smith v. Jennings
...9 Cir., 204 F.2d 324; Garcia v. United States, 9 Cir., 197 F.2d 687; United States v. Knight, D.C., 127 F.Supp. 269; United States v. Williams, D.C., 127 F. Supp. 420; United States ex rel. Caminito v. Murphy, D.C., 127 F.Supp. 689; United States ex rel. Peters v. Carson, D.C., 126 F.Supp. ......
-
Copley v. Sweet, Civ. A. No. 2630.
...9 Cir., 204 F.2d 324; Garcia v. United States, 9 Cir., 197 F.2d 687; United States v. Knight, D.C., 127 F.Supp. 269; United States v. Williams, D.C., 127 F. Supp. 420; United States ex rel. Caminito v. Murphy, D.C., 127 F.Supp. 689. Viewing the plaintiff's complaint in the present case libe......
-
Crawford v. Lydick
...9 Cir., 204 F.2d 324; Garcia v. United States, 9 Cir., 197 F.2d 687; United States v. Knight, D.C., 127 F.Supp. 269; United States v. Williams, D.C., 127 F. Supp. 420; United States ex rel. Caminito v. Murphy, D.C., 127 F.Supp. For the reasons herein stated the court concludes as follows: 1......
- Lester v. United States