Hunter v. McDonald
This text of 159 F.2d 861 (Hunter v. McDonald) 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.
Opinion
McDonald1 was convicted on an indictment charging conspiracy to kidnap, transport interstate, and hold for ransom one Edward George Bremer.
On May 23, 1946, he filed an application for habeas corpus on the theory that he was entitled to good time credit for the 511 days he was out of custody by virtue of the order of discharge. The trial court held that he was entitled to such credit and entered an order discharging him from custody. The Warden has appealed.
Petitioner was out of prison for such period of 511 days, due to the first order of discharge and the order staying the mandate, both of which orders were entered on applications made by petitioner.
In White v. Pearlman, 10 Cir., 42 F.2d 788, we held that the sentence of a prisoner discharged from a Federal penitentiary without his fault before the expiration of sentence continues to run while he is at liberty. In that case, however, when the warden told the prisoner that his term of three years was about to expire, the prisoner told the warden there was some mistake; that his sentence was for five years. The warden then told the prisoner he was going to abide by the records. There, the discharge was due to the mistake of the Warden, an agent of the administrative branch of the Government. Here, petitioner was out of prison by reason of the original order of discharge and the order staying the mandate of this court which orders were induced by applications prosecuted by petitioner. These orders can, in no sense, operate as an estoppel against the United States or its administrative agents. The Warden was compelled to obey the original order of discharge pending review by the appellate courts.
A prisoner is not entitled to credit for the time he is at liberty under an erroneous discharge on a writ of habeas corpus.5 Imprisonment contemplated by a sentence im[863]*863posed by a Federal court is confinement in fact and not merely in fiction.
The order of discharge is reversed and the cause is remanded, with instructions to discharge the writ and direct the return of petitioner to the custody of the Warden.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
159 F.2d 861, 1947 U.S. App. LEXIS 2533, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hunter-v-mcdonald-ca10-1947.