John Allen, Alias John Mayo v. Henry H. Heer, Warden

Sixth Circuit

John Allen, Alias John Mayo v. Henry H. Heer, Warden

361 F.2d 481, 1966 U.S. App. LEXIS 6075

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

DecidedMay 20, 1966

Docket16532_1

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 361 F.2d 481 (John Allen, Alias John Mayo v. Henry H. Heer, Warden) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

John Allen, Alias John Mayo v. Henry H. Heer, Warden, 361 F.2d 481, 1966 U.S. App. LEXIS 6075 (6th Cir. 1966).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant filed the instant petition for writ of habeas corpus in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee. The petition was denied and this appeal followed.

Appellant was convicted for the offense of grand larceny in Robertson County, Tennessee on February 14, 1952, and received a sentence of three to ten years imprisonment. After serving a substantial portion of the sentence imposed, Appellant was paroled on August 3, 1961. Pursuant to T.C.A., Sec. 40-3621, Appellant received a letter of relief issued by the Tennessee Division of Probation and Paroles. This letter provided that Appellant would be relieved from making further reports and would be permitted to leave the State of Tennessee. While on parole, Appellant was subsequently convicted on July 27, 1962 for the offense of third degree burglary in Knox County, Tennessee, and received a three year sentence. Pursuant to T.C.A., Sec. 40-3620, he was required to serve the remainder of his Robertson County sentence before beginning service on his Knox County sentence. Appellant contends he is being illegally held under a sentence from which he has been paroled.

Upon considering-the briefs submitted by the parties, we find that no constitutional rights were denied Appellant. Appellant was not given a final discharge from confinement. His re-confinement was proper under T.C.A., Sec. 40-3620.

Judgment of the District Court is affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

Appellant filed the instant petition for writ of habeas corpus in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee. The petition was denied and this appeal followed.

Appellant was convicted for the offense of grand larceny in Robertson County, Tennessee on February 14, 1952, and received a sentence of three to ten years imprisonment. After serving a substantial portion of the sentence imposed, Appellant was paroled on August 3, 1961. Pursuant to T.C.A., Sec. 40-3621, Appellant received a letter of relief issued by the Tennessee Division of Probation and Paroles. This letter provided that Appellant would be relieved from making further reports and would be permitted to leave the State of Tennessee. While on parole, Appellant was subsequently convicted on July 27, 1962 for the offense of third degree burglary in Knox County, Tennessee, and received a three year sentence. Pursuant to T.C.A., Sec. 40-3620, he was required to serve the remainder of his Robertson County sentence before beginning service on his Knox County sentence. Appellant contends he is being illegally held under a sentence from which he has been paroled.

Upon considering-the briefs submitted by the parties, we find that no constitutional rights were denied Appellant. Appellant was not given a final discharge from confinement. His re-confinement was proper under T.C.A., Sec. 40-3620.

Judgment of the District Court is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

361 F.2d 481, 1966 U.S. App. LEXIS 6075, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/john-allen-alias-john-mayo-v-henry-h-heer-warden-ca6-1966.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack