Bledsoe v. Johnston

Ninth Circuit

Bledsoe v. Johnston

164 F.2d 481, 1948 U.S. App. LEXIS 1899

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedJanuary 12, 1948

DocketNo. 11714

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 164 F.2d 481 (Bledsoe v. Johnston) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Bledsoe v. Johnston, 164 F.2d 481, 1948 U.S. App. LEXIS 1899 (9th Cir. 1948).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, sentenced to two successive five-year terms of imprisonment in Alcatraz Penitentiary, while there in custody, filed his petition for a writ of habeas corpus against the appellee Warden, which writ was denied. He then perfected his appeal [482]*482here. Thereafter he was released because of his good conduct.

Appellee contends that appellant is not in his custody and hence the appeal must be dismissed as moot. Appellant cites Anderson v. Corall, 263 U.S. 193, at page 196, 44 S.Ct. 43, 44, 68 L.Ed. 247, in which the Supreme Court stated of 18 U.S.C.A. § 716, “The parole authorized by the statute does not suspend service or operate to shorten the term. While on parole the convict is bound to remain in the legal custody and under the control of the warden until the expiration of the term, less allowance, if any, for good conduct. While this is an amelioration of punishment, it is in legal effect imprisonment. * * * ”

It is unnecessary for us to decide whether such “imprisonment” is a custody which, if wrongful, warrants the issuance of the writ of habeas corpus. It is apparent that such custody does not extend over the period of his release due to his good conduct allowance.

Since the appellee Warden no longer has any custody of appellant of any kind, appellant’s contention of his wrongful detention is moot and the appeal must be dismissed.

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

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, sentenced to two successive five-year terms of imprisonment in Alcatraz Penitentiary, while there in custody, filed his petition for a writ of habeas corpus against the appellee Warden, which writ was denied. He then perfected his appeal [482]*482here. Thereafter he was released because of his good conduct.

Appellee contends that appellant is not in his custody and hence the appeal must be dismissed as moot. Appellant cites Anderson v. Corall, 263 U.S. 193, at page 196, 44 S.Ct. 43, 44, 68 L.Ed. 247, in which the Supreme Court stated of 18 U.S.C.A. § 716, “The parole authorized by the statute does not suspend service or operate to shorten the term. While on parole the convict is bound to remain in the legal custody and under the control of the warden until the expiration of the term, less allowance, if any, for good conduct. While this is an amelioration of punishment, it is in legal effect imprisonment. * * * ”

It is unnecessary for us to decide whether such “imprisonment” is a custody which, if wrongful, warrants the issuance of the writ of habeas corpus. It is apparent that such custody does not extend over the period of his release due to his good conduct allowance.

Since the appellee Warden no longer has any custody of appellant of any kind, appellant’s contention of his wrongful detention is moot and the appeal must be dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

164 F.2d 481, 1948 U.S. App. LEXIS 1899, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bledsoe-v-johnston-ca9-1948.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack