JOHN THOMAS FITTS, APPELLANT,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ET AL., APPELLEES

10th Cir. | 1971-04-05
No. 684-69
439 F.2d 769 United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit (1971) Positive Treatment
Cited by 4 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

The court held that the failure to immediately execute a mandatory release violator's warrant does not deprive the sentencing court of discretion regarding concurrent sentences or entitle the appellant to release.


Facts & Procedural History

Appellant was mandatorily released and a violator's warrant was issued. He was later convicted of a new crime and sentenced. The warrant remained unex…

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.

Appellant appeals from denial of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus and seeks release from the United States Penitentiary at Leavenworth premised on the failure to execute a mandatory release violator’s warrant on him. Cor-relatively, appellant asserts that failure to execute the warrant deprived the sentencing court of running the remainder of one sentence concurrent with a new sentence if the court so desired. Appellant’s contentions are without merit and we affirm.

In 1964 Fitts was sentenced to a four-year term to run concurrent with a previous sentence. On April 18, 1967 he was mandatorily released with 465 days statutory and extra good time deductions. On June 5, 1967 a mandatory release violator’s warrant was issued by the United States Board of Parole. On November 22, 1967 Fitts was convicted in Texas of a Dyer Act violation and sentenced to five years. Thereafter, on January 17, 1968, the violator’s warrant was returned unexecuted and remains so.

The issued warrant was not required to be executed immediately upon issuance; it was not self-executing when appellant was not taken into custody thereunder; it need not be executed prior to the end of the sentence imposed on conviction of the crime committed on parole; and the withholding of the warrant did not deprive appellant of any reduction of sentence or consideration thereof to which he is by law entitled.

Appellant presents no argument grounded in law which would compel us to reconsider our position, firmly established, in cases like that now before us. See Nash v. Moseley, 10 Cir., 433 F. 2d 923, and cases there cited.

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