James E. Bilton, Jr. v. Dr. George J. Beto, Director, Texas Department of Corrections

Fifth Circuit

James E. Bilton, Jr. v. Dr. George J. Beto, Director, Texas Department of Corrections

403 F.2d 664, 1968 U.S. App. LEXIS 4940

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedNovember 8, 1968

Docket26456_1

StatusPublished

Cited by18 cases

This text of 403 F.2d 664 (James E. Bilton, Jr. v. Dr. George J. Beto, Director, Texas Department of Corrections) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

James E. Bilton, Jr. v. Dr. George J. Beto, Director, Texas Department of Corrections, 403 F.2d 664, 1968 U.S. App. LEXIS 4940 (5th Cir. 1968).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Appellant seeks reversal of the district court’s order dismissing his petition for the writ of habeas corpus. We affirm.

Appellant is a Texas convict who was sentenced to serve four seven-year concurrent terms, having been convicted of four separate offenses of burglary and theft upon his plea of guilty. The sentences were to date from November 13, 1963. While appellant was awaiting to be taken into custody by agents of the Texas Department of Corrections, he was turned over to a U. S. Marshal which led to his incarceration in the Federal Penitentiary in Kansas. After serving his sentence, appellant was delivered to the State authorities who had a detainer on him. Appellant is now serving the balance of his state sentence in the state penitentiary.

Appellant alleges that the state lost jurisdiction over him when he was released to the federal authorities, and his present incarceration is a denial of due process under the Fourteenth Amendment to the U. S. Constitution, citing Shields v. Beto, 5 Cir. 1967, 370 F.2d 1003. However, the circumstances which constituted a waiver of jurisdiction in the Shields case are not present in the ease before us. Here, the State of Texas has done nothing which may be construed as showing a lack of interest in the return of the prisoner following his release from the federal prison. In fact, a detainer was issued immediately upon his release by federal authorities; therefore, the lack of interest by the state that was present in the Shields case does not appear here.

Appellant’s contentions as to when his sentence began to run and the amount of credit he should receive for the time he served on his federal sentence are matters for the state courts to consider. Beto v. Sykes, 5 Cir. 1966, 360 F.2d 411.

*666 Therefore, the order of the district court dismissing the petition for a writ of habeas corpus is affirmed.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM:

Appellant seeks reversal of the district court’s order dismissing his petition for the writ of habeas corpus. We affirm.

Appellant is a Texas convict who was sentenced to serve four seven-year concurrent terms, having been convicted of four separate offenses of burglary and theft upon his plea of guilty. The sentences were to date from November 13, 1963. While appellant was awaiting to be taken into custody by agents of the Texas Department of Corrections, he was turned over to a U. S. Marshal which led to his incarceration in the Federal Penitentiary in Kansas. After serving his sentence, appellant was delivered to the State authorities who had a detainer on him. Appellant is now serving the balance of his state sentence in the state penitentiary.

Appellant alleges that the state lost jurisdiction over him when he was released to the federal authorities, and his present incarceration is a denial of due process under the Fourteenth Amendment to the U. S. Constitution, citing Shields v. Beto, 5 Cir. 1967, 370 F.2d 1003. However, the circumstances which constituted a waiver of jurisdiction in the Shields case are not present in the ease before us. Here, the State of Texas has done nothing which may be construed as showing a lack of interest in the return of the prisoner following his release from the federal prison. In fact, a detainer was issued immediately upon his release by federal authorities; therefore, the lack of interest by the state that was present in the Shields case does not appear here.

Appellant’s contentions as to when his sentence began to run and the amount of credit he should receive for the time he served on his federal sentence are matters for the state courts to consider. Beto v. Sykes, 5 Cir. 1966, 360 F.2d 411.

*666 Therefore, the order of the district court dismissing the petition for a writ of habeas corpus is affirmed.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

403 F.2d 664, 1968 U.S. App. LEXIS 4940, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/james-e-bilton-jr-v-dr-george-j-beto-director-texas-department-of-ca5-1968.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack