Young v. Edmondson, 39691
| Decision Date | 05 March 1955 |
| Docket Number | No. 39691,39691 |
| Parties | Milo YOUNG, Appellant, v. C. A. EDMONDSON, Warden, Kansas State Penitentiary et al., Appellees. |
| Court | Kansas Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court.
In a proceeding for a writ of habeas corpus, in which petitioner seeks his release from the Kansas state penitentiary, the record is examined and it is held: No ground for release from custody being shown, the writ was properly denied.
Milo Young pro se.
Harold, R. Fatzer, Atty. Gen., and James L. Galle, Asst. Atty. Gen., were on the briefs for appellees.
This is an appeal from an order and judgment of the trial court denying appellant's petition for a writ of habeas corpus.
On May 5, 1947, petitioner on his plea of guilty in two felony cases in Scott County was sentenced to confinement in the state penitentiary for a term of not less than one nor more than five years in each case, the sentences to run concurrently. Pursuant to the sentence, he was committed to the state penitentiary on May 12, 1947, and remained in that institution until December 27, 1948, at which time he was granted a parole.
On December 31. 1948, petitioner while on parole again committed a felony in Sedgwick County, and before an arrest could be made for that offense, he entered the state of Colorado, and on January 28, 1949, entered a plea of guilty to a felony committed in that state and was sentenced to be confined in the Colorado state penitentiary where he was received on January 29, 1949. On that date, petitioner was declared delinquent by Kansas authorities on his parole from the Kansas penitentiary. Petitioner was later paroled from the Colorado penitentiary and subsequently extradited from that state by the Sedgwick County, Kansas, authorities, and on December 13, 1950, upon petitioner's plea of guilty, was sentenced by that court to confinement in the state penitentiary for a term of not less than one nor more than five years for the offense committed there on December 31, 1948. The petitioner is now confined in the state penitentiary at Lansing.
Petitioner contends he should not be compelled to serve the balance of the sentence imposed by the Scott County district court from which the parole ws revoked before entering upon the subsequent sentence imposed by the Sedwick County district court. There is no merit to this contention. G.S.1949, 62-1528, provides:
'If any prisoner shall violate the conditions of his parole or release as fixed by the prison board, he shall be declared a delinquent, and shall thereafter be treated as an escaped prisoner owing service to the state, and shall be liable, when arrested, to serve out the unexpired term of his maximum possible imprisonment, and the time from the date of his declared delinquency to the date of his arrest shall not be counted as any portion or part of time served; and any prisoner at large upon parole or conditional release, who shall commit a fresh crime, and upon conviction thereof shall be sentenced anew to the penitentiary, shall be subject to serve the second sentence after the first sentence is served or annulled, said second sentence to commence from the termination of his liability upon the first or former sentence.'
There is no doubt that under the mentioned statute and all of our decisions, when a prisoner who is at large on parole or conditional release commits a fresh crime, he shall, upon conviction thereof and sentence thereunder to the state penitentiary, be subject to serve such second...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Davis v. Rhyne, 40556
...Following In re Martin, 142 Kan. 907, 52 P.2d 1196.' And in Holden v. Hudspeth, 168 Kan. 194, 211 P.2d 64; and Young v. Edmondson, 177 Kan. 582, 280 P.2d 571. The above authorities have been cited in answer to petitioner's contention that the State of Kansas waived or relinquished its right......
-
Guerrieri v. Maxwell
...trials or punishment for such offenses. Zahn v. Kipp, 7 Cir., 218 F.2d 898; Gunton v. Squier, 9 Cir., 185 F.2d 470; Young v. Edmondson, Warden, 177 Kan. 582, 280 P.2d 571; Nolan v. United States, 8 Cir., 163 F.2d 768; Powell v. Stanford, Warden, 156 F.2d 355; Stamphill v. Johnston, 136 F.2d......
-
Pyle v. Edmondson, 39852
...and that such second sentence is to commence at the termination of his liability upon the first or former sentence. Young v. Edmondson, 177 Kan. 582, 280 P.2d 571; Fitch v. Edmondson, 177 Kan. 253, 277 P.2d 627; Craven v. Hudspeth, 172 Kan. 731, 733, 242 P.2d 823; Wears v. Hudspeth, 167 Kan......