Young v. Harris, Civ. A. No. 14791-4.
Citation | 229 F. Supp. 922 |
Decision Date | 20 May 1964 |
Docket Number | Civ. A. No. 14791-4. |
Parties | Melvin Franklin YOUNG, Petitioner, v. Dr. J. D. HARRIS, Warden, Medical Center for Federal Prisoners, Springfield, Missouri, Respondents. |
Court | United States District Courts. 8th Circuit. Western District of Missouri |
Melvin Franklin Young, pro se.
F. Russell Millin, U. S. Atty., by Joseph P. Teasdale, Asst. U. S. Atty., Kansas City, Mo., for respondent.
This is a petition for writ of habeas corpus filed in forma pauperis by a prisoner confined in the Medical Center for Federal Prisoners at Springfield, Missouri.
It appears from the papers and records on file herein that on February 7, 1961, petitioner, then serving a California State Sentence, appeared with court-appointed counsel in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California, Central Division, pursuant to a writ of habeas corpus ad prosequendum and entered a plea of guilty to each count of a three count indictment charging violations of Sections 1708 and 495 of Title 18 U.S.C.A. Petitioner was thereupon sentenced to a period of five years on each count to be served concurrently.
Petitioner was returned to state custody. On March 2, 1962, petitioner was released from state custody and taken into federal custody pursuant to a detainer.
The gist of petitioner's present petition is that the federal sentence began on, and should be computed from, February 7, 1961, and that upon petitioner's return to state custody, the federal authorities lost jurisdiction over him.
Petitioner's specific allegations are that:
1. "Pursuant to the specific provisions of U.S.Code Title 18, Section 3909 Annotation of 1960 when the institution of proceedings under Habeas Corpus ad Prosequendum are commenced against a defendant then in custody for a Contra Relative Jurisdiction under Judicial Causes arising pursuant to Rule 20, Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure upon a plea of guilty and other term given by secondary Jurisdiction must be cumputed sic to commence on that Date."1
2. "Judge Harry C. Westover stated I could do the State Sentence after I finished the Federal which Transcript will show."2
3. "I also contend that when I was turned back over to the State the Federal gave up Jurisdiction."
The petition, insofar as it involves the computation of petitioner's sentence, must be denied for the reason that, giving petitioner credit for all possible good time which he might earn, and assuming the correctness of his contention as to the time his sentence commenced, February 7, 1961,3 the time for his release has not yet arrived.4 Smith v. Settle (W.D.Mo.) 212 F.Supp. 622, l.c. 630, citing McNally v. Hill, 293 U.S. 131, 55 S.Ct. 24, 79 L.Ed. 238.
Insofar as the petition alleges that the federal authorities lost jurisdiction over petitioner by returning him to state custody for completion of his state sentence before commencement of his federal sentence, the petition is without merit. Ponzi v. Fessenden, 258 U.S. 254, 42 S.Ct. 309, 66 L.Ed. 607, 22 A.L.R. 879; Barrett v. United States (C.A. 8) 270 F.2d 772, l.c. 776; United States ex rel. Moses v. Kipp (C.A. 7) 232 F.2d 147; Zahn v. Kipp (C.A. 7) 218 F.2d 898, l.c. 900; Stamphill v. United States (C.A. 10) 135 F.2d 177, l.c. 178; Sansbury v. Peppersack (D.Md.) 179 F.Supp. 649, l.c. 652, aff'd 274 F.2d 40.
It is therefore
Ordered that the petition for writ of habeas corpus on file herein, insofar as it is based on the computation of petitioner's sentence, be, and it is hereby, denied without prejudice for the reason that, even under the petitioner's theory, petitioner is not entitled to release at this time. It is further
Ordered that the petition for writ of habeas corpus on file herein, insofar as it is based on alleged loss of federal jurisdiction over petitioner by returning him to state custody after imposition of federal sentence, be, and it is hereby, denied on the merits.
1 Title 18, U.S.C.A. contains no Section 3909; Rule 20 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure governs transfer from a district for plea and sentence and is inapplicable to petitioner's situation.
2 The pertinent portions of the transcript of the sentencing proceedings read:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Transportation of Federal Prisoners to State Courts Pursuant to Writs of Habeas Corpus
......Hunter, 65 F.Supp. at 367-68 (emphasis. added). See also Young v. Harris, 229 F.Supp. 922,. 924 (W.D. Mo. 1964). The Fifth Circuit in ......
-
Truesdell v. United States, 19146.
...Williams v. Taylor, 327 F.2d 322 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 377 U.S. 1002, 84 S. Ct. 1937, 12 L.Ed.2d 1051 (1964); Young v. Harris, 229 F.Supp. 922, 924 (W.D. Mo.1964). We have examined with care appellant's authorities and find them inapposite. There is no basis for declaring the sentences......
-
De Clue v. Swenson
...future or immediately to allow his petition to be cognizable in habeas corpus in the absence of exceptional circumstances. Young v. Harris (W.D.Mo.) 229 F.Supp. 922. Petitioner does not state facts entitling him to relief in federal habeas corpus, and his petition is therefore dismissed for......