Benjamin v. Hunter

176 F.2d 269, 1949 U.S. App. LEXIS 3042
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
DecidedJune 29, 1949
DocketNo. 3858
StatusPublished
Cited by15 cases

This text of 176 F.2d 269 (Benjamin v. Hunter) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Benjamin v. Hunter, 176 F.2d 269, 1949 U.S. App. LEXIS 3042 (10th Cir. 1949).

Opinion

PHILLIPS; Chief Judge. '

This is an appeal from an order dismissing an application for a, writ of habeas -cor.pus.

On June 27,. 1943, Arthur Benjamin1 was sentenced by an Army General Court Martial to 15 years’ imprisonment upon conviction of violations of the Articles of War. He commenced service of the sentence on August 26, 1943, at the United States Penitentiary at McNeil Island, Washington. On August 8, 1944, all of the good time which he had earned and might earn in the future under 18 U.S.C.A. § 710 . [now § 4161] was forfeited for the reason that he attempted to smuggle a contraband letter out of -the institution.

On June 24, 1945, petitioner was transferred to the United States. Penitentiary at Alcatraz, California,. and on September 11, 1946, he was transferred to the United States Penitentiary at Leavenworth, Kansas.

On November 12, 1945, his sentence was reduced to eight years and on October 6, 1948, it was reduced to seven years.

On September 22, 1947, 450 days of the statutory good time which had been forfeited were restored by the Attorney General under 18 U.S.C.A. § 711 [now § 4166].

Prior to September 1, 1948, the effective date of 18 U.S.C.A. § 4161, good time Carried and good’ time which might be 'earned in the future could be forfeited for violation of the rules of the penal institution.2

Section 4461, supra, in part reads:

“Each prisoner convicted of an offense against the United States and confined in a pepal or correctional institution for a definite term other than for life, whose record of conduct shows that he has faithfully observed all the rules and has not been subjected to punishment, shall be entitled to á deduction from the term of his sentence beginning with the day on which the sentence commences to-run, to be credited as earned and computed monthly as follows: * * "*

“Eight days for each month, if the sentence is not less than five years and less than ten years. * * * ”3 (Italics ours.)

18 U.S.C.A. § 4165 reads:

“If during the term of imprisonment a prisoner commits any offense or violates the rules of the institution, all or any part of his earned good time may be forfeited.” (Italics ours.)

The application for the writ was filed September 1, 1948. It was dismissed De.cember 9, 1948. A motiqn for a rehearing was denied December 29, 1948. The prison officials at Leavenworth, in determining [271]*271the release date for petitioner, in substance made the following computation:

Total good time 8' days per month

for 7 years, or 84 months..... 672 days

Good time forfeited............ 672 days

Good time restored............ 450 days

Release date............... June 1, 1949

That is to say, they deducted from August 25, 1950, the end of the 7-year term, 450 days.

Petitioner submits two alternative methods of computation of his 7-year sentence from its commencement date August 26, 1943, which are set out in the margin.* 234

[272]*272A statute, in the absence of clear expression to the contrary, is presumed to operate prospectively,5 and we are of the opinion that § 4161, ..supra, .should not be applied retroactively. But a statute is not rendered retroactive merely because the facts or requisites upon which its subsequent action depends are drawn from a time antecedent to its enactment.6

We are of the opinion that there is much force to the argument that the provisions of § 4161, supra, should apply in the computation of petitioner’s sentence from and after September 1, 1-948, and that the amount of the forfeiture should be limited to the good time earned under the former statute up to September 1, 1948, which is 481 days.7 Of that good time forfeited, 450 days were restored. Giving petitioner credit for 450 days, his release date would be June 1, 1949, less the good time he could earn after September 1, 1948. But, under § 4161, supra, good time is to be credited* as earned and computed monthly on the basis of eight days per month on a 7-year sentence. The fallacy in petitioner’s computations is that he takes credit for good time after September.1; 1948, not as earned but. for the entire period between September 1, 1948, and August 25, 1950. When the petition was filed on September 1, 1948, petitioner had not earned any good time after September 1, 1948. When the order denying the rehearing was filed on December 29, 1948, petitioner had earned approximately 32-days good time. If he is credited with 450 days up to September 1, 1948, his sentence would expire June 1, 1949. If he is given credit, in addition to the 450 days, for good time from and after September 1, 1948, his release date would not eventuate until approximately April 8, 1949.

Jt follows that whether the release date is computed under the prior law or under § 4161, supra, petitioner was not entitled to discharge.

Our opinion should not be construed as holding that the release date should be determined by the application of § 4161, supra, in the manner we have indicated, because a writ of habeas corpus may not be used to invoke judicial determination of questions which, even if determined in petitioner’s favor, could not affect the lawfulness of his custody and detention or result in his immediate release.8

The trial court released petitioner on bond until the disposition of this appeal. The judgment is affirmed and petitioner is ordered to surrender himself to the custody of the Warden. In the event petitioner does not surrender himself, proper process may be issued' for his arrest and return to the Leavenworth Penitentiary.

BRATTON, Circuit Judge, concurs in the result. > * 1

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Mergenthaler v. Asbestos Corp. of America, Inc.
534 A.2d 272 (Superior Court of Delaware, 1987)
Prescott v. United States
523 F. Supp. 918 (D. Nevada, 1981)
Tye v. Spitzer-Dodge
499 F. Supp. 687 (S.D. Ohio, 1980)
Lohf v. Casey
466 F.2d 618 (Tenth Circuit, 1972)
In Re Estate of McKay
491 P.2d 932 (Supreme Court of Kansas, 1971)
Lohf v. Casey
330 F. Supp. 356 (D. Colorado, 1971)
Burnside v. State Of Nebraska
378 F.2d 915 (Eighth Circuit, 1967)
Burnside v. Nebraska
378 F.2d 915 (Eighth Circuit, 1967)
Melvin L. Easley v. United States
257 F.2d 174 (Tenth Circuit, 1958)
Lesser v. Humphrey
89 F. Supp. 474 (M.D. Pennsylvania, 1950)
Sturm v. McGrath
177 F.2d 472 (Tenth Circuit, 1949)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
176 F.2d 269, 1949 U.S. App. LEXIS 3042, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/benjamin-v-hunter-ca10-1949.