H. Marvin Vaughn v. Harold A. Cox, Warden, New Mexico State Penitentiary

Tenth Circuit

H. Marvin Vaughn v. Harold A. Cox, Warden, New Mexico State Penitentiary

350 F.2d 951, 1965 U.S. App. LEXIS 4412

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit

DecidedSeptember 30, 1965

Docket8275_1

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 350 F.2d 951 (H. Marvin Vaughn v. Harold A. Cox, Warden, New Mexico State Penitentiary) 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. Marvin Vaughn v. Harold A. Cox, Warden, New Mexico State Penitentiary, 350 F.2d 951, 1965 U.S. App. LEXIS 4412 (10th Cir. 1965).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

By this habeas corpus proceeding, a state prisoner attacks the validity of his present confinement in the New Mexico State Penitentiary on several grounds. Relief was denied by the trial court and this appeal followed. At the outset of our consideration of the case, we must first be able to ascertain from the record which of four separate sentences imposed upon appellant he is now serving. This we are unable to do because there is no finding by the trial court on this important matter, nor is there any evidence in the record from which we can ascertain such fact.

*952 The case is therefore remanded to the trial court with directions to vacate the order of dismissal, reopen the case for the taking of additional evidence to determine the wording of the four commitments involved, the journal entries of judgment, the docket entries made in each case, the pertinent records of the institution of confinement to show the time served on each of the four commitments and the good time allowance given to appellant.

The trial court is also directed to take any other additional competent evidence offered by either the petitioner or the respondent and to make findings of fact and conclusions of law as provided for by Rule 52, F.R.Civ.P.

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

PER CURIAM.

By this habeas corpus proceeding, a state prisoner attacks the validity of his present confinement in the New Mexico State Penitentiary on several grounds. Relief was denied by the trial court and this appeal followed. At the outset of our consideration of the case, we must first be able to ascertain from the record which of four separate sentences imposed upon appellant he is now serving. This we are unable to do because there is no finding by the trial court on this important matter, nor is there any evidence in the record from which we can ascertain such fact.

*952 The case is therefore remanded to the trial court with directions to vacate the order of dismissal, reopen the case for the taking of additional evidence to determine the wording of the four commitments involved, the journal entries of judgment, the docket entries made in each case, the pertinent records of the institution of confinement to show the time served on each of the four commitments and the good time allowance given to appellant.

The trial court is also directed to take any other additional competent evidence offered by either the petitioner or the respondent and to make findings of fact and conclusions of law as provided for by Rule 52, F.R.Civ.P.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

350 F.2d 951, 1965 U.S. App. LEXIS 4412, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/h-marvin-vaughn-v-harold-a-cox-warden-new-mexico-state-penitentiary-ca10-1965.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack