LAWRENCE RAY YANT, APPELLANT,
v.
OLIN G. BLACKWELL, WARDEN, UNITED STATES PENITENTIARY, ATLANTA, GEORGIA, 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 federal government did not acquiesce in the appellant serving a state sentence, and thus, time spent in state custody did not affect his federal sentence.
Appellant, convicted of federal aggravated post office robbery, was temporarily transferred to state custody for a state robbery prosecution. He was m…
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 18 U.S.C. § 2114 cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM:
Lawrence Ray Yant appeals from the district court’s denial of his petition for habeas corpus. While appeal was pending relative to his conviction for aggravated post office robbery, 18 U.S.C. § 2114, appellant was taken from a United States penitentiary to Indiana for prosecution on a state charge of robbery. The writ of habeas corpus ad prosequendum issued by the state court authorized his presence for trial but did not purport to authorize his subsequent service of any state sentence. He was convicted of robbery in state court and, by an error of the sheriff, was taken to an Indiana state prison on July 20, 1966 to commence service of the sentence. When the federal authorities learned of this, they immediately took steps to obtain appellant’s return to their custody, which was effected on or about August 9, 1966, after the state court on August 4, 1966 had granted his motion for new trial.
The prison record showed that appellant lost no credit for time served on his federal sentence as a result of time spent in Indiana. Subsequently, his federal conviction was affirmed. United States v. Yant, 6th Cir. 1967, 373 F. 2d 543.
The district court held that Yant was merely “loaned” to the state for a limited purpose and that the federal government never acquiesced in his service of the state sentence. The record abundantly supports this finding. His temporary release to the state by the federal government was a matter of comity between sovereigns of which he cannot be heard to complain. Ponzi v. Fessenden, 1922, 258 U.S. 254, 42 S.Ct. 309, 66 L.Ed. 607; Jones v. Taylor, 10th Cir. 1964, 327 F. 2d 493, cert. denied, 377 U.S. 1002, 84 S.Ct.1937, 12 L.Ed.2d 1051; Craig v. Hunter, 10th Cir. 1948, 167 F. 2d 721; Stamphill v. Johnston, 9th Cir. 1943, 136 F. 2d 291, cert. denied, 320 U. S. 766, 64 S.Ct. 70, 88 L.Ed. 457.
The Judgment of the district court is
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Hanks v. Wideman, 434 F.2d 256 (5th Cir. 1970)
-
Brown v. General, 457 F.2d 938 (5th Cir. 1972)
Authorities Cited
- Ponzi v. Fessenden, 258 U.S. 254 (U.S. 1922)
- Stamphill v. Johnston, 136 F.2d 291 (9th Cir. 1943)
- Osborne v. Taylor, 377 U.S. 1002 (U.S. 1964)
- Craig v. Hunter, 167 F.2d 721 (10th Cir. 1948)
- Spruill v. Newby, 320 U.S. 766 (U.S. 1943)
- Colley v. Tennessee, 320 U.S. 766 (U.S. 1943)
- Jones v. Taylor, 327 F.2d 493 (10th Cir. 1964)
- United States v. Yant, 373 F.2d 543 (6th Cir. 1967)