PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES EX REL. RENO
v.
RAGEN, WARDEN
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that the State of Illinois had the right to return the petitioner involuntarily to serve his sentence.
Petitioner was convicted of armed robbery in Illinois, paroled, and subsequently convicted of armed robbery in Michigan. Illinois lodged a parole viol…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Parole Violation cases and more on FLexlaw
MAJOR, Circuit Judge.
Petitioner has appealed from an order of the District Court denying his application for a writ of habeas corpus. This court has granted him leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and the record discloses the requisite certificate of probable cause.
Petitioner is a prisoner in custody of respondent, Warden of the Illinois State Penitentiary at Joliet, Illinois, under sentence of imprisonment for a term of ten years to life upon conviction of the crime of armed robbery. His sentence was imposed on August 12, 1926. In November, 1936, petitioner was paroled to Cameron, Texas; subsequently he was arrested in Detroit, Michigan, upon the charge of armed robbery; he was convicted and sentenced upon this charge to serve a term of five to twenty-five years in the Michigan State Prison. A parole violator’s warrant was lodged with the Michigan authorities by the Illinois authorities, and upon petitioner’s release from the Michigan institution in December, 1942, he was delivered into the custody of the Illlinois au thorities and returned to Joliet on December 23, 1942.
Petitioner contends that the State of Illinois had no right to bring him back to Illinois involuntarily and again confine him under the statute applicable to his case. Smith-Hurd Ann.Stats. Chap. 38, Sec. 808. This involves an interpretation of the laws of Illinois. We so held in Whitten v. Bennett, 7 Cir., 141 F. 2d 295. The question has been decided adversely to petitioner’s contention by the Illinois Supreme Court in People v. Becker, 382 Ill. 404, 47 N.E. 2d 475, and by this court in United States ex. rel. Jackson v. Ragen, 7 Cir., 150 F. 2d 190, in which we approved the holding of the Becker case. See also U.S. ex rel. Lyons v. Ragen, 7 Cir., 150 F. 2d 53.
The judgment is affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
United States ex rel. Meiner v. Ragen, 199 F.2d 798 (7th Cir. 1952)
-
United States ex rel. Turner v. Bennett, 153 F.2d 102 (7th Cir. 1945)
-
United States ex rel. Hughes v. Ragen, 154 F.2d 289 (7th Cir. 1946)
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Whitten v. Bennett, 141 F.2d 295 (7th Cir. 1944)
- United States ex rel. Lyons v. Ragen, 150 F.2d 53 (7th Cir. 1945)
- United States ex rel. Jackson v. Ragen, 150 F.2d 190 (7th Cir. 1945)