Yeaman v. United States
| Decision Date | 18 December 1963 |
| Docket Number | No. 18726.,18726. |
| Citation | 326 F.2d 293 |
| Parties | Charles Thomas YEAMAN, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
Charles Thomas Yeaman, in pro. per.
Francis C. Whelan, U. S. Atty., Thomas R. Sheridan, Asst. U. S. Atty., Chief, Criminal Section, and Robert L. Brosio, Asst. U. S. Atty., Los Angeles, Cal., for appellee.
Before ORR, MERRILL and BROWNING, Circuit Judges.
Appellant is presently in federal custody at San Pedro, California, serving a prison term upon a conviction of a violation of the Dyer Act, 18 U.S.C.A. § 2312. He was convicted on September 9, 1960, in a California Superior Court for a violation of California Penal Code § 470, and began serving a term in the state prison therefor. During the time appellant was incarcerated in the state prison he was indicted in the United States District Court, on August 9, 1961, for the Dyer Act violation. The State of California released appellant on parole on November 28, 1961. He was taken into custody by the United States, entered a plea of guilty to the federal charge on December 11, 1961, and was sentenced on January 2, 1962 to the term from which he now seeks relief. He filed an Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus" on January 21, 1963, the denial of which is the basis for this appeal.1
Appellant first contends that his five year federal sentence should be reduced by the seventeen months he had previously served in the custody of the State of California for his state conviction. In so contending he does not rely on the terms of his federal sentence, but claims that as a general proposition of law, "concurrent jurisdiction must result in concurrent sentence."
This contention has no merit. The state sentence imposed here could not have in any case been concurrent with the federal sentence, because the state sentence was completed before the federal sentence was entered. "Concurrent" sentences are to be served at the same time. To sustain appellant's contention would call for a holding that he had served seventeen months of his federal sentence before said sentence was entered.
Appellant next contends that the delay between his indictment and his plea of guilty in the trial court, slightly over four months, deprived him of his right to a speedy trial. We agree with the reasoning of the trial court in rejecting this contention. It said:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Gilbert v. United States
...in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2313. See United States v. Adams, 281 U.S. 202, 50 S.Ct. 269, 74 L.Ed. 807 (1930); Yeaman v. United States, 326 F.2d 293, 294 (9th Cir. 1963); cf. Hill v. Holman, 255 F. Supp. 924, 925 Almost three years prior to petitioner's plea of guilty to three counts of the......
-
United States v. Crooker
...no issues of fact, and the Court only is presented with issues of law, an evidentiary hearing is unnecessary. See Yeaman v. United States , 326 F.2d 293, 294 (9th Cir. 1963). The parties here agree on the facts but disagree as to whether those facts prove Defendant's guilt or constitute ine......
-
Gengler v. U.S. ex rel. Dept. of Defense and Navy, 1:06CV00362 OWWLJO.
...when questions presented in the petition can be readily resolved by reference to the record. (Doc. 79 at 8, citing Yeaman v. United States, 326 F.2d 293, 294 (9th Cir. 1963)). This is incorrect, as Petitioners make specific allegations that can only be confirmed by the testimony of the indi......
-
United States v. Whittington
... ... relief. United States v. Leonti , 326 F.3d 1111, 1116 ... (9th Cir. 2003). An evidentiary hearing is also unnecessary ... when there are no disputed issues of fact and the defendant ... raises only issues of law. See Yeaman v. United ... States , 326 F.2d 293, 294 (9th Cir. 1963). Here, ... defendant's claims raise only legal issues in the wake of ... the Supreme Court's decision in Davis ... An ... evidentiary hearing would not aid in the resolution of the ... pending motion and is ... ...
-
28 U.S.C. § 2254 State Custody; Remedies In Federal Courts
...issues of fact (372 U.S. at 309), such a hearing is unnecessary when only issues of law are raised. See, e.g., Yeaman v. United States, 326 F.2d 293 (9th Cir. 1963).In situations in which an evidentiary hearing is not mandatory, the judge may nonetheless decide that an evidentiary hearing i......