Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 20 views

    Smith v. Hunter, Warden, 201 F.2d 62, 10th Cir. (1952)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document is a court opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit regarding a habeas corpus petition filed by Smith challenging his continued detention. The court held that Smith was not entitled to release because he had not yet served the maximum 10 year sentence that could have been imposed for the underlying offense, even though he had served the 40 month concurrent sentence, since he did not pay the accompanying $500 fine. The writ of habeas corpus was discharged and Smith was remanded to custody.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd

    Smith v. Hunter, Warden, 201 F.2d 62, 10th Cir. (1952)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    20 views4 pages
    This document is a court opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit regarding a habeas corpus petition filed by Smith challenging his continued detention. The court held that Smith was not entitled to release because he had not yet served the maximum 10 year sentence that could have been imposed for the underlying offense, even though he had served the 40 month concurrent sentence, since he did not pay the accompanying $500 fine. The writ of habeas corpus was discharged and Smith was remanded to custody.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 1952-12-12 Precedential Status: Precedential Citations: 201 F.2d 62 Docket: 4535

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This document is a court opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit regarding a habeas corpus petition filed by Smith challenging his continued detention. The court held that Smith was not entitled to release because he had not yet served the maximum 10 year sentence that could have been imposed for the underlying offense, even though he had served the 40 month concurrent sentence, since he did not pay the accompanying $500 fine. The writ of habeas corpus was discharged and Smith was remanded to custody.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    20 views4 pages

    Smith v. Hunter, Warden, 201 F.2d 62, 10th Cir. (1952)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document is a court opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit regarding a habeas corpus petition filed by Smith challenging his continued detention. The court held that Smith was not entitled to release because he had not yet served the maximum 10 year sentence that could have been imposed for the underlying offense, even though he had served the 40 month concurrent sentence, since he did not pay the accompanying $500 fine. The writ of habeas corpus was discharged and Smith was remanded to custody.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    You are on page 1of 4

    201 F.

    2d 62

    SMITH,
    v.
    HUNTER, Warden.
    No. 4535.

    United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit.


    Dec. 12, 1952.

    Malcolm Miller, Wichita, Kan., for appellant.


    Ernest J. Rice, Asst. U.S. Atty., Topeka, Kan. (Eugene W. Davis, U.S.
    Atty., Topeka, Kan., on the brief), for appellee.
    Before PHILLIPS, Chief Judge, and MURRAH and PICKETT, Circuit
    Judges.
    PHILLIPS, Chief Judge.

    On January 23, 1950, Smith, hereinafter called petitioner, upon a plea of guilty
    to Count Two of an indictment filed in the United States District Court for the
    Southern District of Texas in cause No. 6024, was sentenced to the custody of
    the Attorney General for imprisonment for a period of 40 months.

    The sentence provides that it shall 'run concurrently with the sentence in
    Criminal Case 8312 at the Laredo Division of this Court which was this day put
    in force as to the fine of Five Hundred ($500) Dollars.'

    On the same day the court in another proceeding, Criminal Case No. 3212,
    found that the petitioner had violated the conditions of an order suspending the
    imposition of sentence and imposed the following sentence:

    'It is the sentence of the Court that the Defendant pay to the United States of
    America a fine of Five Hundred ($500) Dollars for fraudulently and knowingly
    concealing narcotic drug, Vio. Sec. 174, Tit. 21, U.S.C.A. as charged in Count
    Two of the Indictment and that the United States of America do have and

    recover of and from the said Raymond O. Smith said sum of Five Hundred
    ($500) Dollars for which execution may issue. Further that the said Raymond
    O. Smith is committed until such fine is paid. This sentence to run concurrent
    with the sentence imposed on said Defendant Smith on this date in Criminal
    No. 6024, United States of America vs. Raymond O'dell Smith at the Galveston
    Division of this Court.'
    5

    In his petition for the writ the petitioner set up that the two sentences were to
    run concurrently; that he had served his 40 month sentence; that he was entitled
    to be discharged; and that the respondent refused to discharge him.

    The trial court held that unless petitioner paid the fine he was not entitled to
    discharge until he had served the maximum sentence which could be imposed
    in Criminal Case No. 8312, or until he served 30 days in addition to the 40
    months and had filed the affidavit provided for by 18 U.S.C.A. 3569.1

    The maximum term of imprisonment which could have been imposed upon
    petitioner for the offense of which he was convicted in No. 8312 was 10 years.
    21 U.S.C.A. 174.

    In No. 8312 petitioner was committed until the fine imposed had been paid.
    Had there been no provision in the sentence in No. 8312 that it should run
    concurrently with the sentence imposed in No. 6024, there could be no doubt
    that petitioner, unless he either paid the fine or filed the affidavit provided for
    in Sec. 3569, supra, was subject to imprisonment for nonpayment of the fine for
    such maximum period of 10 years.2 What, then, was the effect of the provision
    in the sentence in No. 8312 that it should run concurrently with a sentence
    imposed in No. 6024? Obviously, a sentence of a fine could not run
    concurrently with a sentence of imprisonment. The only part of the sentence in
    No. 8312 which could run concurrently with the sentence in No. 6024 was the
    imprisonment under the former for nonpayment of the fine. We are of the
    opinion that the effect of the concurrent provision in the sentence in No. 8312
    was to make the sentence of imprisonment for nonpayment of the fine
    commence at the time the imprisonment under the sentence in No. 6024 began,
    and not at the time such imprisonment terminated. Accordingly, the maximum
    term of imprisonment for nonpayment of the fine commenced on January 23,
    1950, when petitioner commenced the service of the imprisonment sentence
    imposed in No. 6024.

    Since petitioner has not served the maximum term of 10 years from January 23,
    1950, and has neither paid the fine nor filed the affidavit provided for in Sec.

    3569, supra, he is not now entitled to discharge.


    10

    It was settled in McNally v. Hill, 293 U.S. 131, 136-138,3 55 S.Ct. 24, 26, 79
    L.Ed. 238, that the only inquiry which may be made in a habeas corpus
    proceeding is the legality of the detention; that the only relief authorized is
    discharge or admission to bail if the detention be found to be unlawful, and that
    the writ may not be employed as a means of obtaining the judicial decision of
    any question which, even if determined in the prisoner's favor, will not result in
    his immediate release.

    11

    Hence, we do not now determine whether petitioner will be entitled to


    discharge upon the filing of the affidavit provided for in Sec. 3569, supra.

    12

    The order discharging the writ is affirmed and the cause is remanded with
    instructions to vacate the order enlarging the petitioner on bond and to remand
    him to the custody of the warden.

    18 U.S.C.A. 3569 provides:


    '(a) When a poor convict, sentenced for violation of any law of the United
    States by any court established by enactment of Congress, to be imprisoned and
    pay a fine, or fine and costs, or to pay a fine, or fine and costs, has been
    confined in prison thirty days, solely for the nonpayment of such fine, or fine
    and costs, such convict may make application in writing to the nearest United
    States commissioner in the district where he is imprisoned setting forth his
    inability to pay such fine, or fine and costs, and after notice to the district
    attorney of the United States, who may appear, offer evidence, and be heard,
    the commissioner shall proceed to hear and determine the matter.
    'If on examination it shall appear to him that such convict is unable to pay such
    fine, or fine and costs, and that he has not any property exceeding $20 in value,
    except such as is by law exempt from being taken on execution for debt, the
    commissioner shall administer to him the following oath: 'I do solemnly swear
    that I have not any property, real or personal, exceeding $20, except such as is
    by law exempt from being taken on civil process for debt; and that I have no
    property in any way conveyed or concealed, or in any way disposed of, for my
    future use or benefit. So help me God.' Upon taking such oath such convict
    shall be discharged; and the commissioner shall file with the institution in
    which the convict is confined, a certificate setting forth the facts. In case the
    convict is found by the commissioner to possess property valued at an amount
    in excess of said exemption, nevertheless, if the Attorney General finds that the

    retention by such convict of all of such property is reasonably necessary for his
    support or that of his family, such convict shall be released without further
    imprisonment solely for the nonpayment of such fine, or fine and costs; or if he
    finds that the retention by such convict of any part of such property is
    reasonably necessary for his support or that of his family, such convict shall be
    released without further imprisonment solely for nonpayment of such fine or
    fine and costs upon payment on account of his fine and costs, of that portion of
    his property in excess of the amount found to be reasonably necessary for his
    support or that of his family.
    '(b) Any such indigent prisoner in a Federal institution may, in the first
    instance, make his application to the warden of such institution, who shall have
    all the powers of a United States Commissioner in such matters, and upon
    proper showing in support of the application shall administer the oath required
    by subsection (a) of this section, discharge the prisoner, and file his certificate
    to that effect in the records of the institution.
    'Any such indigent prisoner, to whom the warden shall fail or refuse to
    administer the oath may apply to the nearest Commissioner for the relief
    authorized by this section and the Commissioner shall proceed de novo to hear
    and determine the matter.'
    2

    In re Greenwald, C.C., 8th Cir., 77 F. 590

    In that case the court said:


    'The purpose of the proceeding defined by the statute was to inquire into the
    legality of the detention, and the only judicial relief authorized was the
    discharge of the prisoner or his admission to bail, and that only if his detention
    were found to be unlawful. * * * Diligent search of the English authorities and
    the digests before 1789 has failed to disclose any case where the writ was
    sought or sued, either before or after conviction, as a means of securing the
    judicial decision of any question which, even if determined in the prisoner's
    favor, could not have resulted in his immediate release.'

    You might also like