FLETCHER R. WILLIAMS, PETITIONER-APPELLANT,
v.
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, 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.
A state detainer remains valid even when state sentences are ordered to run concurrently with federal sentences, and the prisoner is transferred to federal custody.
Appellant sought habeas corpus relief, arguing that California state sentences ordered to run concurrently with federal sentences required the removal…
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 Waiver Of Jurisdiction cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM:
Appellant petitioned for a writ of ha-beas corpus. He contended that California State sentences, ordered to run concurrently with federal sentences, require the removal of a detainer placed by the State of California against appellant, now in federal custody. The district court denied relief. We affirm.
We reach the merits without considering possible procedural infirmities, which might likewise call for an affirmance. In Re Patterson (1966) 64 Cal.2d 357, 362, 49 Cal.Rptr. 801, 804, 411 P. 2d 897, 900, disposes of the case. The court said:
“The sole purpose of transferring defendant to Texas in to permit him to serve his sentences concurrently. If at the time of his release by Texas a portion of the California sentence remains to be served, he should be returned to this state * * * ”
The court concluded that waiver of jurisdiction should be found only in those cases in which the record reflects “affirmative evidence that the waiver was intentional.” p. 363, 49 Cal.Rptr. p. 804, 411 P. 2d p. 900. Here no such affirmative evidence appears.
Thus, the California detainer is valid. If, on appellant’s release from federal custody, where he is now serving both federal and state sentences, time remains unserved on the California sentences, he may properly be returned to California custody. Federal law is in accord, Bullock v. State of Mississippi (5 Cir. 1968) 404 F. 2d 75.
The district court's denial of relief was correct even though the court inadvertently referred to the California state sentences as being consecutive to the federal sentences.
Judgment affirmed.