(Download) "Smith v. Blackwell" by United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ~ eBook PDF Kindle ePub Free
eBook details
- Title: Smith v. Blackwell
- Author : United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
- Release Date : January 12, 1966
- Genre: Law,Books,Professional & Technical,
- Pages : * pages
- Size : 51 KB
Description
On December 19, 1955, in the Western Division of the Western District of Tennessee, appellant was sentenced to imprisonment for 3 1/2 years for a Dyer Act violation. 18 U.S.C. ? 2312. Appellant was paroled on September 22, 1957, with 634 days of his sentence remaining to be served. On October 3, 1957, appellant was sentenced by a state court to a state penal farm in Memphis, Tennessee, for a term of one year on a charge of fraudulent breach of trust. Appellant escaped on December 17, 1957, and was rearrested in Mobile, Alabama, on January 17, 1958. While in custody there, the response to the order to show cause states that he admitted to a bank robbery in Oregon in 1955 and a mail theft in California in 1954. On March 5, 1958, in the Southern District of Alabama, he was sentenced to imprisonment for a total of 12 years for these two offenses. On April 21, 1958, a parole violator warrant was issued by the United States Board of Parole based on appellants failure to keep his probation office advised as to his whereabouts, leaving his district without permission, and escaping from the state penal farm. The warrant was lodged as a detainer against appellant and was not served until July 25, 1965, when appellant was released from his second federal sentence imposed in the Southern District of Alabama. Appellant began to serve the violated sentence of 634 days on July 25, 1965, and on August 30, 1965, his parole was revoked by the United States Board of Parole. On September 21, 1965, appellant filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, asserting that the parole violator warrant should have been served in 1958 and that waiting until 1965 to serve him was a violation of due process. The District Court entered an able memorandum opinion and denied the writ of habeas corpus, but granted appellants motion to appeal in forma pauperis. This Court denied appellants motion for appointment of counsel. Appellant has not filed a brief, and this case is submitted on the record and the brief of appellee.