Wilson v. Warden of Conn. State Prison

Decision Date03 December 1964
Docket NumberNo. 139936,139936
CourtConnecticut Superior Court
PartiesAlton WILSON v. WARDEN OF CONNECTICUT STATE PRISON.

Alton Wilson, pro se.

John D. LaBelle, State's Atty., and Harry W. Hultgren, Jr., Asst. State's Atty., for defendant.

PALMER, Judge.

This is a petition for a writ of habeas corpus alleging unlawful imprisonment. On March 12, 1963, the petitioner pleaded guilty as follows: to two informations charging the two crimes of robbery with violence (General Statutes § 53-14); one information charging breaking and entering a dwelling in the daytime (§ 53-73); and one information charging two counts of failure to appear according to bail bond (§ 53-154). He received an effective sentence of not less than one and one-half years nor more than nine years in the state prison, where he is now confined. Said effective sentence was ordered to commerce on the petitioner's release from confinement in the federal penitentiary at Lewisburg, Pennsylvania, and did commence upon such release on or about July 4, 1964.

The petitioner was arrested in this state on or about March 3, 1961, and charged with robbery with violence. He was released on bond and left the state. He was next heard from when he was arrested in Maryland on federal offenses of forgery and altering checks. On or about December 5, 1961, he was returned to this state by the federal authorities. He was convicted upon federal charges in the United States District Court at New Haven and there received an effective prison sentence of six years. He was sent to the Lewisburg penitentiary to serve the sentence imposed by the federal court.

While confined at Lewisburg, he made application dated January 22, 1963, for a speedy trial of the charges pending in this state, in accordance with his constitutional right to such a trial. On February 5, 1963, the bureau of prisons of the United States department of justice authorized the petitioner's production in the Superior Court in Hartford County, subject to the conditions and statutes under which federal prisoners are produced in state courts. On February 13, 1963, the Superior Court in Hartford County issued a writ of habeas corpus ad prosequendum, pursuant to which the petitioner appeared in that court. On March 12, 1963, he was sentenced as above set forth. On July 3, 1964, he was released from Lewisburg to Connecticut authorities, who delivered him to the respondent herein on a mittimus issued by the Superior Court in Hartford County pursuant to the sentences imposed on March 12, 1963.

On this state of facts, the petitioner claims that the due process clause of the fourteenth amendment was violated when he was taken out of the federal prison and prosecuted and sentenced in Hartford County. The fact is that he himself requested and initiated the procedure whereby he was brought to this state for trial of the state charges against him here. He asked for his constitutional right to a speedy trial, and it was granted to him. He is in no position to complain that a procedure he desired and asked for, and in no way objected to, violated any of his constitutional rights.

The petition herein also alleges that the state of Connecticut 'lost jurisdiction to try petitioner' when it permitted him to stand 'Federal trial and to commence service of the Federal sentence.' After his arrest in this state in March, 1961, and his release on bond, the petitioner became a...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 cases
  • State v. Williamson
    • United States
    • Connecticut Supreme Court
    • 29 Marzo 1988
    ...53a-37; Redway, v. Walker, supra, 132 Conn. at 306, 43 A.2d 748. In a well reasoned Connecticut trial court decision; Wilson v. Warden, 26 Conn.Sup. 4, 209 A.2d 688 (1964); the court, Palmer, J., was confronted with a habeas petitioner who had been found guilty by a Connecticut court while ......
  • Herman v. Brewer, 54893
    • United States
    • Iowa Supreme Court
    • 14 Enero 1972
    ...rejected the rationale of In re Carey. State v. Azzone, 271 Minn. 166, 135 N.W.2d 488, 498 (1965); Wilson v. Warden of Connecticut State Prison, 26 Conn.Sup. 4, 209 A.2d 688, 689 (1964). California, however, appears to have interpreted its own sentencing statute to achieve substantially the......
  • Arrow-Hart & Hegeman Elec. Co. v. Greater Hartford Flood Commission
    • United States
    • Connecticut Superior Court
    • 17 Febrero 1965
    ...209 A.2d 681 ... 26 Conn.Supp. 1 ... The ARROW-HART AND HEGEMAN ELECTRIC COMPANY ... ...
  • State v. Brown
    • United States
    • Connecticut Superior Court
    • 9 Junio 1967
    ...twice before been convicted, sentenced and imprisoned in a state prison or penitentiary. General Statutes § 54-121; see Wilson v. Warden, 26 Conn.Sup. 464, 209 A.2d 688. The defendant has a most lengthy and sordid criminal record dating back to his early youth. His past history shows that w......

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