UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE,
v.
MORRIS GRAHAM MCCROCKLIN, 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.
The court held that the appellant was not entitled to credit for pre-sentence jail time because his custody was in connection with state charges, not the federal offense for which he was sentenced.
Appellant was convicted of violating the Dyer Act and sentenced to federal prison. He sought credit for 132 days spent in jail prior to his state sent…
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 Rule 35 Motion cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant was convicted for violation of the Dyer Act, 18 U.S.C. §§ 2311-2313 (1964), on October 26, 1966, and sentenced to two concurrent two-year terms. These terms were to run consecutively to a state sentence previously given him on October 5, 1966, for passing bad checks. While in state custody a federal detainer concerning the Dyer Act charges had been lodged against him. After serving the state sentence, appellant was transferred to a federal penitentiary to serve the federal sentence.
On April 1, 1968, he applied by letter to the District Court for the Western District of Kentucky to secure credit for 132 days spent in jail prior to imposition of his state sentence. Terming this a Rule 35 motion, the District Judge denied it without hearing.
Since the motion was clearly out of time under Rule 35 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, we prefer to treat it as having been made under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. This, however, does not require determination on any different standards than those employed by the District Judge.
Appellant’s reliance is upon 18 U.S.C. § 3568, as amended in 1966. The particular sentence reads: “The Attorney General shall give any . . . person [convicted of a federal offense] credit toward service of his sentence for any days spent in custody in connection with the offense or acts for which sentence was imposed.” It seems clear to us, as it did to the District Judge, that appellant was in jail prior to imposition of his state sentence because of failure to make a state bond and not because of the federal detainer which was filed because of the Dyer Act violations.
The judgment of the District Court is affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Ballard v. Olin G. Blackwell, 449 F.2d 868 (5th Cir. 1971)
-
United States v. Blankenship, 733 F.2d 433 (6th Cir. 1984)
-
Culotta v. Warden Pickett, 506 F.2d 1061 (7th Cir. 1974)