PATRICK J. O'SHEA, PETITIONER, APPELLANT,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ET AL., RESPONDENTS, APPELLEES
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 petitioner's pre-sentence custody was not subject to attack via habeas corpus, and even if it were, the subsequent valid sentence rendered the custody lawful.
Petitioner O'Shea, already in state custody, was brought to Massachusetts via writ of habeas corpus ad prosequendum to stand trial. He was convicted, …
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 Writ Of Habeas Corpus Ad Prosequendum cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Petitioner O’Shea seeks a writ of habeas corpus directed against the United States Marshal,* alleging wrongful custody under the following circumstances. While O’Shea was in state confinement in the state of New York a writ of habeas corpus ad prosequendum was issued by the District Court for the District of Massachusetts and he was brought thereunder to Massachusetts to stand trial in the district court under an indictment. He was tried and convicted and his appeal is presently under advisement. While in custody after sentence he filed the present petition. The district court dismissed, and O’Shea appeals.
The issues, somewhat elaborately argued, can be simply disposed of. In the first place, the presentence custody was not open to attack. Carbo v. United States, 1961, 364 U.S. 611, 81 S.Ct. 338, 5 L.Ed.2d 329. But even if such prior custody had been illegal, custody became valid under the sentence. Frisbie v. Collins, 1952, 342 U.S. 519, 72 S.Ct. 509, 96 L.Ed. 541.
Affirmed.
*
The writ is also sought against the Warden of a Massachusetts jail in which petitioner, at the time of filing the petition, was being lodged by the Marshal. Custody is in the Marshal, and the Warden was improperly named.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Konigsberg v. Pasquale J. Ciccone, M.D., 417 F.2d 161 (8th Cir. 1969)
-
Lamoureux v. Commonwealth OF Mass., 412 F.2d 710 (1st Cir. 1969)
Authorities Cited
- Frisbie v. Collins, 342 U.S. 519 (U.S. 1952)
- Carbo v. United States, 364 U.S. 611 (U.S. 1961)