MCDONALD
v.
HUMPHREY

8th Cir. | 1948-06-09
No. 13698
Before SANBORN, THOMAS and RIDDICK, Circuit Judges.
168 F.2d 519 United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit (1948)

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.


Holding

The court held that the appellant is not entitled to credit for time spent at liberty under erroneous orders of discharge.


Facts & Procedural History

Appellant sought a writ of habeas corpus, claiming credit for time he was at liberty under two separate erroneous orders of discharge from custody. Th…

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.


Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from an order dismissing appellant’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus.

The history of the incarceration of the appellant is sufficiently stated in Hunter v. McDonald, 10 Cir., 159 F. 2d 861, in which it was held that he was not entitled to credit upon his sentence of imprisonment for the time he was at liberty under an erroneous order of discharge from custody entered June 6, 1940, in habeas corpus proceedings initiated by him in the United States District Court for the District of Kansas. He brought this present habeas corpus proceeding upon the claims (1) that he is entitled to credit for the time he was at liberty under an order of discharge from custody entered in 1946 by the same court, which order was reversed, on appeal, in Hunter v. McDonald, supra; and (2) that his sentence ivas in excess of the legal maximum. The district judge dismissed appellant’s petition, and this appeal followed.

There is no merit in the appellant’s contentions. The difference between being behind prison walls and being at liberty, whether unconditionally, on bail, or on parole, is too obvious to require discussion. The opinion of the Circuit Court of Appeals of the Tenth Circuit sufficiently explains why the time spent by the appellant out of prison under erroneous orders of discharge procured by him is not to be credited upon his sentence of imprisonment.

The validity of appellant’s sentence was adjudicated by this Court in McDonald v. United States, 8 Cir., 89 F. 2d 128.

The order appealed from is affirmed.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw