CHARLES WILLIAM PARRIS, PETITIONER-APPELLANT,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, RESPONDENT-APPELLEE

5th Cir. | 1971-03-29
No. 30919
440 F.2d 407 Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit (1971)

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.


Holding

The court held that the appellant is not entitled to credit for pre-sentencing custody time because the relevant statutory amendment is not retrospective and the trial court had already considered the custody time.


Facts & Procedural History

Charles William Parris appealed the denial of his petition for credit on his federal prison sentence for time spent in custody prior to sentencing. He…

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.


Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM:

PER CURIAM:

Charles William Parris appeals from the district court denial of his petition for credit on his federal prison sentence for certain time spent in custody prior to his sentencing. We affirm.

The appellant contends that he is entitled to credit for time spent in jail from his January 26, 1963, arrest until his May 9, 1963, sentencing under the 1966 amendment to 18 U.S.C. § 3568. This amendment, effective July 1, 1966, provides that a defendant shall receive credit on his sentence for time spent in custody “in connection with the offense or acts for which sentence was imposed”. We have specifically held that 18 U.S..C. § 3568 is not to be given retrospective application. Howard v. Blackwell, 5 Cir., 1967, 389 F. 2d 84.

The appellant, Parris, received a sentence for eight years less than the maximum imposable penalty. The sentence transcript reveals specifically that the trial court took into consideration the time which had been spent in custody between the time of arrest and sentence.

The denial of relief was eminently correct and the judgment below must be affirmed.

Affirmed.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw