CHARLES E. LAWRENSON, PETITIONER-APPELLANT,
v.
OLIN G. BLACKWELL, WARDEN, RESPONDENT-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 1966 amendment to Rule 38(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure is not retroactive, and therefore the appellant is not entitled to credit for pre-appeal custody time served before the amendment.
Appellant was convicted of a federal offense and elected not to commence his sentence pending appeal, pursuant to Rule 38(a)(2). He spent approximatel…
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 Petition For Writ Of Mandamus cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM:
Charles E. Lawrenson appeals from the district court’s denial of his petition in the nature of mandamus. We affirm.1
Subsequent to his conviction of a federal offense, the appellant in 1960 elected not to commence service of his sentence pending his direct appeal, pursuant to Rule 38(a) (2), F.R.Crim.P. He now seeks credit for approximately 400 days spent in custody awaiting the disposition of his appeal.
Prior to a 1966 amendment to Rule 38(a) (2), a defendant was allowed to remain in his place of trial while his direct appeal was pending, upon his execution of an election not to commence serving his sentence; but he would not be credited with such time spent in custody.
Although the amended Rule provides that credit shall be given for post-sentence jail time, we have repeatedly held that the amendment is not to be applied retrospectively. Duke v. Blackwell, 5th Cir. 1970, 429 F. 2d 531; Tandler v. Blackwell, 5th Cir. 1969, 412 F. 2d 780; Alloceo v. Heritage, 5th Cir. 1962, 310 F. 2d 719.
Since the appellant served his 400 days of “dead time” prior to 1966, his contention that he should be credited therewith is without merit.
The judgment of the district court is affirmed.
Affirmed.
. It is appropriate to dispose of this pro se case summarily, pursuant to this Court’s local Rule 9(c) (2), appellant having failed to file a brief within the time fixed by Rule 31, Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure. Kimbrough v. Beto, Director, 5th Cir. 1969, 412 F. 2d 981.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Wilson v. Henderson, 468 F.2d 582 (5th Cir. 1972)
Authorities Cited
- Kimbrough v. Beto, 412 F.2d 981 (5th Cir. 1969)
- Allocco v. Heritage, 310 F.2d 719 (5th Cir. 1962)
- Tandler v. Olin G. Blackwell, 412 F.2d 780 (5th Cir. 1969)
- Duke v. Olin G. Blackwell, 429 F.2d 531 (5th Cir. 1970)