JAMES E. BILTON, JR., APPELLANT,
v.
DR. GEORGE J. BETO, DIRECTOR, TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, 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 state did not lose jurisdiction over the appellant when he was transferred to federal custody, and his claims regarding sentence commencement and credit are matters for state courts.
Appellant, a Texas convict, pleaded guilty to four offenses and was sentenced to concurrent terms. While awaiting transfer to state custody, he was tu…
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 Waiver Of Jurisdiction cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM:
Appellant seeks reversal of the district court’s order dismissing his petition for the writ of habeas corpus. We affirm.
Appellant is a Texas convict who was sentenced to serve four seven-year concurrent terms, having been convicted of four separate offenses of burglary and theft upon his plea of guilty. The sentences were to date from November 13, 1963. While appellant was awaiting to be taken into custody by agents of the Texas Department of Corrections, he was turned over to a U. S. Marshal which led to his incarceration in the Federal Penitentiary in Kansas. After serving his sentence, appellant was delivered to the State authorities who had a detainer on him. Appellant is now serving the balance of his state sentence in the state penitentiary.
Appellant alleges that the state lost jurisdiction over him when he was released to the federal authorities, and his present incarceration is a denial of due process under the Fourteenth Amendment to the U. S. Constitution, citing Shields v. Beto, 5 Cir. 1967, 370 F. 2d 1003. However, the circumstances which constituted a waiver of jurisdiction in the Shields case are not present in the ease before us. Here, the State of Texas has done nothing which may be construed as showing a lack of interest in the return of the prisoner following his release from the federal prison. In fact, a detainer was issued immediately upon his release by federal authorities; therefore, the lack of interest by the state that was present in the Shields case does not appear here.
Appellant’s contentions as to when his sentence began to run and the amount of credit he should receive for the time he served on his federal sentence are matters for the state courts to consider. Beto v. Sykes, 5 Cir. 1966, 360 F. 2d 411. Therefore, the order of the district court dismissing the petition for a writ of habeas corpus is affirmed.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Nelson v. Estelle, 642 F.2d 903 (5th Cir. 1981)
-
Woodard v. Beto, 447 F.2d 103 (5th Cir. 1971)
-
Dorrough v. State OF Tex., 440 F.2d 1063 (5th Cir. 1971)
Previewing 3 of 10 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Shields v. Beto, 370 F.2d 1003 (5th Cir. 1967)
- Beto v. Sykes, 360 F.2d 411 (5th Cir. 1966)