TIMOTHY EDWARD WHITE, PETITIONER-APPELLANT,
v.
ROBERT A. BUTTERWORTH, THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR THE STATE OF FLORIDA, HARRY K. SINGLETARY, JR., SECRETARY OF THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, RESPONDENTS-APPELLEES

11th Cir. | 1996-03-11
Nos. 94-2901, 94-2989
Before KRAVITCH, EDMONDSON and BARKETT, Circuit Judges.
78 F.3d 500 Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit (1996) Positive Treatment
Cited by 6 cases
Opinion of the Court

BY THE COURT: Appellant’s “emergency notice to the court for corrections,” construed as a motion to correct this court’s opinion of December 7, 1995, 70 F. 3d 573, is GRANTED. As corrected, the first sentence of footnote one reads as follows: White also appears to have made the argument that he was “in custody” as a result of the 1987 conviction because Alabama had placed a detainer on him for the conviction that should have run concurrently with his 1987 sentence.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By

  • Clay Means v. State of Ala., 209 F.3d 1241 (11th Cir. 2000)
    …, 1925, 104 L.Ed.2d 540 (1989). But we have held that the Court in Maleng permitted currently incarcerated petitioners to challenge a sentence enhanced by an expired sentence. See White v. Butterworth, 70 F. 3d 573, 574 (11th Cir.1995), corrected, 78 F. 3d 500 (11th Cir.1996). “In order to meet the ‘in custody’ requirement, the petitioner is deemed to be challenging the current sentence that has been enhanced by an expired conviction, rather than directly challenging the expired conviction.” Van Zant v.…
  • van Zant v. Fla. Parole Comm'n, 104 F.3d 325 (11th Cir. 1997)
    …ibility that petitioners who are currently incarcerated may challenge the enhancement of their current sentences by prior convictions for whieh the sentence has completely expired. White v. Butterworth, 70 F. 3d 573, 574 (11th Cir.1995), corrected, 78 F. 3d 500 (11th Cir.1996); Harper v. Evans, 941 F. 2d 1538, 1539 (11th Cir.1991); Battle v. Thomas, 923 F. 2d 165, 166 (11th Cir.1991). In order to meet the “in custody” requirement, the petitioner is deemed to be challenging the current sentence that has be…
  • Unger v. Moore, 258 F.3d 1260 (11th Cir. 2001)
    …9 S.Ct. 1928, 1925, 104 L.Ed.2d 540 (1989). As such, federal courts normally lack jurisdiction over petitions which challenge a conviction with a completely expired sentence. See White v. Butterworth, 70 F. 3d 573, 574 (11th Cir.1995), as amended, 78 F. 3d 500 (11th Cir.1996). The mere possibility that an expired conviction might be used to enhance another conviction is insufficient to satisfy the “in custody” requirement of § 2254. See Fox v. Kelso, 911 F. 2d 563, 567 (11th Cir.1990). A petitioner is “…

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw