STANLEY SELTENRICH, APPELLANT,
v.
MAURICE H. SIGLER, WARDEN, ANGOLA STATE PRISON, APPELLEE
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 appellant's continued imprisonment is not a deprivation of federal constitutional rights, as the sentence was correctly interpreted as consecutive.
Appellant sought a writ of habeas corpus, claiming his imprisonment beyond one year violated his constitutional rights because his sentences were conc…
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 Federal Constitutional Rights cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appealing from denial of writ of ha-beas corpus after exhausting similar relief in the Louisiana State Courts, including denial of writ of certiorari by the United States Supreme Court,1 appellant contends that under a sentence2 which is in law concurrent rather than consecutive, he is by continued imprisonment beyond one year deprived of his federal constitutional rights. We cannot agree. Construction of the sentence entered by one of its courts is primarily the ultimate responsibility of the Louisiana Supreme Court. It has determined 3 that the sentence was clearly intended to be, and therefore is, consecutive. If, in view of this action, any matter is left open for us in construing the sentence, we would ourselves agree with the Louisiana Courts; the intent is clear that sentence on the second charge is to commence after expiration of the service of sentence on the first, and so on down through the charges following in numerical sequence. United States v. Daugherty, 269 U.S. 360, 46 S.Ct. 156, 157, 70 L.Ed. 309; Fleish v. Swope, 9 Cir., 226 F. 2d 310. Judgment affirmed. . 848 U.S. 931, 75 S.Ct. 348. . “Cases No. “28,510 through 28,534 — (both nos. incluvisve) — State v. Stanley Seltenrich, ■ alias Fred Seltenrich, and Mrs. Stanley Seltenrich, alias Carol Littleton: (Forgery): “In the above numbered and entitled cases, accused Stanley Seltenrich, alias Fred Seltenrich, present in open Court, withdrew his pleas of not guilty in each case, and upon motion of the State ofor sentences, Court passed sentences as follows: I sentence you, Stanley Seltenrich, alias Fred Seltenrich, in each case, to serve one (1) year at hard labor in the Louisiana State Penitentiary at Angola, Louisiana, said sentences to run consecutively. Accused gave his age as 21 years, was remanded and Sheriff ordered to see that said sentences are carried into effect. * “28,796 — State vs. Stanley Seltenrich, and Mrs. Carol Littleton Seltenrich: (Aggravated Jail Break): Accused, Stanley Seltenrich, present in open Court, arraigned, pleaded guilty and upon motion of State for sentence, sentenced by the Court as follows: I sentence you, Stanley Seltenrich, to serve one (1) year at hard labor in the Louisiana State Penitentiary at Angola, Louisiana, said sentence to run consecutively with those imposed above in cases Nos. 28,510 through 28,534. Accused remanded.” . “By Ponder, J: October 1, 1954 Stanley Seltenrich vs. No. Maurice.H. Sigler, Warden Angola State Prison No. 42,065 In re Stanley Seltenrich applying for writs of habeas corpus Writs refused. We find no error in the ruling complained of.”
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Kennedy v. Reid, 249 F.2d 492 (D.C. Cir. 1957)
Authorities Cited
- United States v. Daugherty, 269 U.S. 360 (U.S. 1926)
- Fleish v. Swope, 226 F.2d 310 (9th Cir. 1955)