UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE,
v.
JOHN MORGAN WILLIAMSON, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT
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.
Administrative loss of good time does not constitute double jeopardy for escape conviction, and a motion to vacate a sentence must be filed in the court that imposed the sentence.
Williamson was convicted of unlawful escape and sentenced consecutively. He claimed double jeopardy due to prior administrative loss of good time and …
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 Collateral Attack On Sentence cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM:
Williamson was found guilty of unlawful escape from the Federal Correctional Institution, Seagoville, Texas,1 and sentenced to thirteen months’ confinement, the sentence to run consecutively to the sentence he was serving under a previous conviction for a violation of the Dyer Act.2 He claims that he has been subjected to double jeopardy under the Fifth Amendment because he had already administratively lost “good time” deductions from the term of the earlier sentence. Williamson further complains that the district court erred in refusing to consider his § 2255 motion asserting that the charge of escape arose out of a void judgment entered in the district court of New Mexico and that the judgment of the district court for the Western District of Louisiana revoking his probation was also void. We find Williamson’s contentions without merit and affirm.
In Keaveny v. United States, 5 Cir. 1969, 405 F. 2d 821, where a similar double jeopardy issue was raised, we summarily disposed of it saying: “This contention is without merit. Administrative discipline of an escapee does not prohibit criminal prosecution for the escape.”
The court below properly refused to consider Williamson’s § 2255 motion. The statute clearly provides that a prisoner who desires to collaterally attack his sentence “may move the court which imposed the sentence to vacate, set aside or correct the sentence.” The collateral attack must be filed in the convicting court. Light v. United States, 5 Cir. 1970, 430 F. 2d 932; Walker v. United States, 5 Cir. 1970, 429 F. 2d 1301.
Affirmed.
. 18 U.S.C.A. § 751(a).
. 18 U.S.C.A. §§ 2311-2313.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
United States v. Duke, 527 F.2d 386 (5th Cir. 1976)
-
United States v. Stead, 528 F.2d 257 (8th Cir. 1975)
Authorities Cited
- Isbell Enters., Inc. v. Citizens Cas. Co. OF NEW York, 431 F.2d 409 (5th Cir. 1970)
- Keaveny v. United States, 405 F.2d 821 (5th Cir. 1969)
- Ulysses Walker v. United States, 429 F.2d 1301 (5th Cir. 1970)
- Light v. United States, 430 F.2d 932 (5th Cir. 1970)