Hynes v. United States

Seventh Circuit

Hynes v. United States

35 F.2d 734, 1929 U.S. App. LEXIS 3067

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit

DecidedNovember 21, 1929

DocketNo. 4231

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 35 F.2d 734 (Hynes v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Hynes v. United States, 35 F.2d 734, 1929 U.S. App. LEXIS 3067 (7th Cir. 1929).

Pincite

Opinion

PAGE, Circuit Judge.

Appellant was sentenced, on a plea of guilty, to serve 60 days in the Kane county, Ill., jail. It does not appear that the mittimus, made out on this sentence, on the same day, was delivered to the marshal. On the day of this first sentence, appellant again appeared in court, the judgment was set aside, appellant was given the right to withdraw his plea of guilty, again pleaded guilty, and was sentenced to three years in the penitentiary at Leavenworth.

[735]*735The sole question is, Is the.second sentence valid ? In criminal eases, where a sentence is valid and the defendant has commenced the service of the sentence, the court thereupon loses all power over the ease, even during the same term. U. S. v. Murray, 275 U. S. 347, 358, 48 S. Ct. 146, 72 L. Ed. 309; Ex parte Lange, 18 Wall. 163, 168, 21 L. Ed. 872. For general discussion, see 8 Ruling Case Law, § 246 et seq., p. 243; 16 Corpus Juris, § 2096 et seq., p. 1313. The legality of the first sentence is not in question. Unless there is a statutory provision, or a provision in the judgment as entered, that the service shall begin at a specified time, service begins when the prisoner is delivered into the custody of the officer at the prison where the sentence is to be served. U. S. v. Howe (C. C. A.) 280 F. 815, 819, 23 A. L. 531; Miller v. Snook (D. C.) 15 F.(2d) 68; Yutz v. Pearman (D. C.) 33 F.(2d) 906; Commonwealth v. Weymouth, 2 Allen (Mass.) 144, 147, 79 Am. Dec. 776; People v. Jones, 308 Ill. 125, 127, 139 N. E. 122; 16 Corpus Juris, § 3119, p. 1327; Clifford v. Maryland, 30 Md. 57]5. Under the federal statute (U. S. Code, tit. 18, § 710 [18 USCA § 710]), providing for deductions from sentences for good conduct, it is stated how the terms of the prisoner’s sentence is to be estimated, viz. “commencing on the first day of his arrival at the penitentiary, prison, or jail.” We find no other statutory provision affecting the question.

Judgment is affirmed.

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

PAGE, Circuit Judge.

Appellant was sentenced, on a plea of guilty, to serve 60 days in the Kane county, Ill., jail. It does not appear that the mittimus, made out on this sentence, on the same day, was delivered to the marshal. On the day of this first sentence, appellant again appeared in court, the judgment was set aside, appellant was given the right to withdraw his plea of guilty, again pleaded guilty, and was sentenced to three years in the penitentiary at Leavenworth.

[735]*735The sole question is, Is the.second sentence valid ? In criminal eases, where a sentence is valid and the defendant has commenced the service of the sentence, the court thereupon loses all power over the ease, even during the same term. U. S. v. Murray, 275 U. S. 347, 358, 48 S. Ct. 146, 72 L. Ed. 309; Ex parte Lange, 18 Wall. 163, 168, 21 L. Ed. 872. For general discussion, see 8 Ruling Case Law, § 246 et seq., p. 243; 16 Corpus Juris, § 2096 et seq., p. 1313. The legality of the first sentence is not in question. Unless there is a statutory provision, or a provision in the judgment as entered, that the service shall begin at a specified time, service begins when the prisoner is delivered into the custody of the officer at the prison where the sentence is to be served. U. S. v. Howe (C. C. A.) 280 F. 815, 819, 23 A. L. 531; Miller v. Snook (D. C.) 15 F.(2d) 68; Yutz v. Pearman (D. C.) 33 F.(2d) 906; Commonwealth v. Weymouth, 2 Allen (Mass.) 144, 147, 79 Am. Dec. 776; People v. Jones, 308 Ill. 125, 127, 139 N. E. 122; 16 Corpus Juris, § 3119, p. 1327; Clifford v. Maryland, 30 Md. 57]5. Under the federal statute (U. S. Code, tit. 18, § 710 [18 USCA § 710]), providing for deductions from sentences for good conduct, it is stated how the terms of the prisoner’s sentence is to be estimated, viz. “commencing on the first day of his arrival at the penitentiary, prison, or jail.” We find no other statutory provision affecting the question.

Judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

35 F.2d 734, 1929 U.S. App. LEXIS 3067, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hynes-v-united-states-ca7-1929.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack