James Curtis McKinney v. J. C. Taylor, Warden, United States Penitentiary, Leavenworth, Kansas

344 F.2d 854, 1965 U.S. App. LEXIS 5736
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
DecidedApril 30, 1965
Docket7982_1
StatusPublished
Cited by4 cases

This text of 344 F.2d 854 (James Curtis McKinney v. J. C. Taylor, Warden, United States Penitentiary, Leavenworth, Kansas) 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
James Curtis McKinney v. J. C. Taylor, Warden, United States Penitentiary, Leavenworth, Kansas, 344 F.2d 854, 1965 U.S. App. LEXIS 5736 (10th Cir. 1965).

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from an order of the United States District Court for the District of Kansas, denying the appellant’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus. On December 19, 1955, McKinney was sentenced in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania, to serve a term of 12% years. He is now confined in the United States Penitentiary at Leavenworth, Kansas. The substance of the allegations of his petition is that he has served his sentence and is entitled to release. The petition was dismissed without a hearing.

On July 15, 1963, the United States Board of Parole released McKinney on parole. He was immediately delivered to the state authorities of North Carolina on a detainer lodged by that state with the warden of the United States Penitentiary at Atlanta, Georgia. The record does not show the disposition which North Carolina made of the charges against petitioner, but sometime thereafter he was taken into custody as a parole violator. He is now confined in the United States Penitentiary at Leavenworth, Kansas, where he is serving the remainder of his sentence.

The trial court thought that the petition raised only the question of whether the petitioner was entitled to credit on his sentence for the time spent in state custody. The petition was prepared by McKinney, and giving it the liberal construction which we should, it raises the question of whether statutory and industrial good-time has been properly allowed. This can be determined only by a transcript of good-time allowances which should be furnished by the warden and a determination made by the court.

The order dismissing the petition is reversed and the cause is remanded for further proceedings in accordance with the views herein expressed.

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

Related

United States ex rel. Simmons v. Pennsylvania
292 F. Supp. 830 (E.D. Pennsylvania, 1968)
Application of Buccheri
431 P.2d 91 (Court of Appeals of Arizona, 1967)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
344 F.2d 854, 1965 U.S. App. LEXIS 5736, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/james-curtis-mckinney-v-j-c-taylor-warden-united-states-penitentiary-ca10-1965.