H. J. Jones v. J. C. Taylor, Warden United States Penitentiary, Leavenworth, Kansas,appellee

327 F.2d 493
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
DecidedMarch 2, 1964
Docket7494_1
StatusPublished
Cited by22 cases

This text of 327 F.2d 493 (H. J. Jones v. J. C. Taylor, Warden United States Penitentiary, Leavenworth, Kansas,appellee) 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
H. J. Jones v. J. C. Taylor, Warden United States Penitentiary, Leavenworth, Kansas,appellee, 327 F.2d 493 (10th Cir. 1964).

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We have here an appeal from the denial of habeas corpus relief. Appellant Jones, a prisoner at Leavenworth penitentiary, was convicted of narcotic offenses in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan and on appeal his conviction was affirmed. Jones v. United States, 6 Cir., 309 F.2d 361, certiorari denied 374 U.S. 835, 83 S.Ct. 1884, 10 L.Ed.2d 1057. At the time of his conviction he was on parole under a Michigan state sentence. He appealed the federal conviction and posted an appeal bond. The state then took him into custody as a parole violator to serve the state sentence. After release by the state he was taken into custody on the federal conviction. This is his second application for federal habeas corpus, the first being denied and no appeal taken.

Appellant asserts that the United States lost jurisdiction to enforce sentence after it permitted the state to take him into custody. The contention has no merit. When a person is convicted of independent crimes in state and federal courts, the question of jurisdiction and custody is one of comity between the two governments and not a *494 personal right of the prisoner. Carson v. Executive Director, Department of Parole, 10 Cir., 292 F.2d 468; Hall v. Looney, 10 Cir., 256 F.2d 59, 60; and Mitchell v. Boen, 10 Cir., 194 F.2d 405, 407.

The trial court properly disposed of the matter without a hearing. The petition for habeas corpus raised only a question of law.

Affirmed.

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

Related

New York ex rel. Coughlin v. Poe
835 F. Supp. 585 (E.D. Oklahoma, 1993)
STATE OF NY BY COUGHLIN v. Poe
835 F. Supp. 585 (E.D. Oklahoma, 1993)
Anthony Terran Warner v. United States
772 F.2d 909 (Sixth Circuit, 1985)
Hernandez v. United States
527 F. Supp. 83 (W.D. Oklahoma, 1981)
Perry v. Carter
514 F. Supp. 19 (W.D. Oklahoma, 1980)
Smith v. Keohane
491 F. Supp. 626 (W.D. Oklahoma, 1979)
Lionel v. Day
430 F. Supp. 384 (W.D. Oklahoma, 1976)
Parks v. United States
369 F. Supp. 1163 (N.D. Oklahoma, 1973)
Potter v. Ciccone
316 F. Supp. 703 (W.D. Missouri, 1970)
Strauser v. Ciccone
310 F. Supp. 1011 (W.D. Missouri, 1970)
Gregory v. Page
289 F. Supp. 316 (E.D. Oklahoma, 1968)
United States v. Bloombaum
261 F. Supp. 814 (D. Maryland, 1966)
Charles Curtis Harris v. United States
356 F.2d 945 (Tenth Circuit, 1966)
Wilbur Owen Morton v. United States
351 F.2d 457 (Tenth Circuit, 1965)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
327 F.2d 493, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/h-j-jones-v-j-c-taylor-warden-united-states-penitentiary-ca10-1964.