H. J. JONES, APPELLANT,
v.
J. C. TAYLOR, WARDEN UNITED STATES PENITENTIARY, LEAVENWORTH, KANSAS, 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 government does not lose jurisdiction to enforce a federal sentence when a state takes custody of a prisoner for an independent state offense.
Appellant, convicted of federal narcotic offenses, was on parole for a state sentence. After his federal conviction was affirmed, the state took him i…
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
PER CURIAM.
We have here an appeal from the denial of habeas corpus relief. Appellant Jones, a prisoner at Leavenworth penitentiary, was convicted of narcotic offenses in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan and on appeal his conviction was affirmed. Jones v. United States, 6 Cir., 309 F. 2d 361, certiorari denied 374 U.S. 835, 83 S.Ct. 1884, 10 L.Ed.2d 1057. At the time of his conviction he was on parole under a Michigan state sentence. He appealed the federal conviction and posted an appeal bond. The state then took him into custody as a parole violator to serve the state sentence. After release by the state he was taken into custody on the federal conviction. This is his second application for federal habeas corpus, the first being denied and no appeal taken.
Appellant asserts that the United States lost jurisdiction to enforce sentence after it permitted the state to take him into custody. The contention has no merit. When a person is convicted of independent crimes in state and federal courts, the question of jurisdiction and custody is one of comity between the two governments and not a personal right of the prisoner. Carson v. Executive Director, Department of Parole, 10 Cir., 292 F. 2d 468; Hall v. Looney, 10 Cir., 256 F. 2d 59, 60; and Mitchell v. Boen, 10 Cir., 194 F. 2d 405, 407.
The trial court properly disposed of the matter without a hearing. The petition for habeas corpus raised only a question of law.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Floyd v. Henderson, 456 F.2d 1117 (5th Cir. 1972)
-
Jacobs v. Crouse, 349 F.2d 857 (10th Cir. 1965)
-
Lucien A. Jutras v. United States, 340 F.2d 305 (1st Cir. 1964)
Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Hall v. Looney, 256 F.2d 59 (10th Cir. 1958)
- Smith v. New Jersey, 374 U.S. 835 (U.S. 1963)
- Parry-Hill v. McGarraghy, 374 U.S. 835 (U.S. 1963)
- Mitchell v. Boen, 194 F.2d 405 (10th Cir. 1952)
- Carson v. Executive Director, 292 F.2d 468 (10th Cir. 1961)
- Jones v. United States, 309 F.2d 361 (6th Cir. 1962)