ELMER EUGENE HIGGERSON, APPELLANT,
v.
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, APPELLEE

8th Cir. | 1966-12-02
No. 18448
369 F.2d 398 United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit (1966) Positive Treatment
Cited by 2 cases

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

Time spent on mandatory or conditional release does not count as time served on a sentence for a violator.


Facts & Procedural History

Appellant pleaded nolo contendere and was sentenced to 15 years. He was released but retaken as a mandatory release violator. He sought release via ha…

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.

Elmer Eugene Higgerson, a prisoner confined as a medical patient at the Medical Center for Federal Prisoners in Springfield, Missouri, brought habeas proceedings in the United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri, Western Division, seeking his release. This appeal is from Chief Judge Becker’s order dismissing the petition.

On April 17, 1951 appellant entered pleas of nolo contendere in three cases, each containing multiple counts, and was sentenced to a total term of fifteen years’ imprisonment. He was released from prison on October 21, 1960 but retaken into custody as a mandatory release violator on September 24,1964.

The sole issue here is whether under the Constitution and statutes of the United States, appellant is entitled to have the time of his mandatory or conditional release treated as time served on his sentence. Appellant states the issue as: “Does time spent on parole or mandatory release count on a prisoner’s sentence ?”

The answer to appellant’s question is no. It is settled law in this circuit that a violator of a conditional release or parole has no such entitlement. Howard v. United States, 274 F. 2d 100 (8th Cir. 1960); Hedrick v. Steele, 187 F. 2d 261 (8th Cir. 1951). These two cases discuss the applicable constitutional provisions and statutes and resolve the issue squarely contrary to appellant’s contentions here.

The District Court’s order overruling the petition for habeas corpus is affirmed.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw