Wright v. Bennett
| Decision Date | 17 November 1964 |
| Docket Number | No. 51450,51450 |
| Citation | 257 Iowa 61,131 N.W.2d 455 |
| Parties | David Lee WRIGHT, Appellant, v. John E. BENNETT, Warden, Appellee. |
| Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
David Lee Wright, pro se.
Even Hultman, Atty. Gen. of Iowa, for appellee.
David Lee Wright was tried and convicted of the crime of larceny of a motor vehicle. On March 6, 1963 he was sentenced to be confined at Fort Madison for the term of not to exceed 10 years. The mittimus provided 'that this term run concurrently with a sentence entered in the District Court of Pottawattamie County at Avoca, Iowa on February 10, 1961 * * *'. This sentence was also for a term of 10 years on a conviction of breaking and entering.
On January 27, 1964 he filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus alleging that certain of his constitutional rights under the 6th and 14th amendments had been violated. The trial court denied the writ on the ground that the issues raised in this petition were in existence prior to and should have been included in a petition filed October 31, 1963 which had been denied after hearing. Petitioner appealed and the State moved to dismiss the appeal because the petition showed on its face that it was directed solely to the March 6, 1963 conviction and sentence and failed to show or allege that the term of imprisonment on the Pottawattamie County conviction of February 10, 1961 had expired or was no longer in effect. The motion was ordered submitted with the appeal.
I. The motion to dismiss is sustamed. Under this record it appears the petitioner is lawfully detained under the sentence imposed on the Pottawattamie County conviction. It has not been attacked.
'It is well settled that a prisoner has no right to a writ of habeas corpus unless he is entitled to immediate release.' 39 C.J.S. Habeas Corpus § 13, p. 443.
A 25 Am.Jur. 153. Habeas Corpus § 15.
The United States Supreme Court considered a similar question in McNally v. Hill, 293 U.S. 131, 55 S.Ct. 24, 79 L.Ed. 238, in which the petitioner attacked the validity of a conviction on the third count of an indictment while serving sentences on the first two counts. The sentence on the third count was to follow that on the first two courts. The court said:
'We conclude that, as it appears from the petition that the detention of the petitioner is lawful under the sentence on the second count, there is no occasion, in a habeas corpus proceeding, for inquity into the validity of his conviction under the third.' 293 U.S. p. 135, 55 S.Ct. p. 26, 79 L.Ed. p. 241.
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Com. ex rel. Stevens v. Myers
...v. Ragen, 336 U.S. 968, 69 S.Ct. 939, 93 L.Ed. 1120 (1949); Shoemaker v. Dowd, 232 Ind. 602, 115 N.E.2d 443 (1953); Wright v. Bennett, Iowa, 131 N.W.2d 455 (1964) (question of first impression); McQueen v. Crouse, 192 Kan. 821, 391 P.2d 68 (1964); Roberts v. Warden, 206 Md. 246, 111 A.2d 59......
-
State v. Hernandez-Galarza
...an individual may collaterally attack the outcome of a state criminal proceeding as an end in and of itself. See Wright v. Bennett, 257 Iowa 61, 63, 131 N.W.2d 455, 456 (1964) (“The writ is available only where the release of the prisoner will follow as a result of a decision in his favor.”......
-
State ex rel. Jackson v. Henderson
...corpus to question the prisoner's present detention. See: Patterson v. Smith, 227 Ga. 170, 179 S.E.2d 247 (1971); Wright v. Bennett, 257 Iowa 61, 131 N.W.2d 455 (1964); Ramsey v. Hand, 183 Kan. 307, 327 P.2d 1080 (1958); People ex rel. O'Dell v. Bannan, 365 Mich. 429, 113 N.W.2d 220 (1962);......
- State Auto. and Cas. Underwriters v. Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co.