Lacey v. Sanford

Fifth Circuit

Lacey v. Sanford

158 F.2d 282, 1946 U.S. App. LEXIS 2379

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedOctober 25, 1946

DocketNo. 11703

StatusPublished

This text of 158 F.2d 282 (Lacey v. Sanford) 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

Lacey v. Sanford, 158 F.2d 282, 1946 U.S. App. LEXIS 2379 (5th Cir. 1946).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Lacey, it appears, was convicted in a State court and sentenced to twenty-one years imprisonment. He was delivered to a United States Marshal for trial in a federal court and was there on Feb. 25, 1944, sentenced to imprisonment for twenty-five years “sentence to run concurrently with sentence now being served.” tie was returned to the State penitentiary, and after thirteen months was then “paroled to the federal authorities,” and has since been in a federal penitentiary, not paroled as to the federal sentence. He contends that by returning him to the State penitentiary after imposition of his federal sentence the United States lost all jurisdiction over him.

No complaint or contention is made about a want of credit on the federal sentence for the time served in the State penitentiary after its imposition. Such credit we understand is conceded. That being true, no point can be made by the prisoner touching the surrender of custody by the State for the trial in the federal court, and resumption by the State of custody afterwards. The lawfulness of such temporary surrenders by both federal and State jurisdictions in order to facilitate the prompt and speedy trial of criminal charges, and the inability of the prisoner to object were fully discussed in Ponzi v. Fessenden, 258 U.S. 254, 42 S.Ct. 309, 66 L.Ed. 607, 22 A.L.R. 879. That decision controls this case in principle.

Judgment affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

Lacey, it appears, was convicted in a State court and sentenced to twenty-one years imprisonment. He was delivered to a United States Marshal for trial in a federal court and was there on Feb. 25, 1944, sentenced to imprisonment for twenty-five years “sentence to run concurrently with sentence now being served.” tie was returned to the State penitentiary, and after thirteen months was then “paroled to the federal authorities,” and has since been in a federal penitentiary, not paroled as to the federal sentence. He contends that by returning him to the State penitentiary after imposition of his federal sentence the United States lost all jurisdiction over him.

No complaint or contention is made about a want of credit on the federal sentence for the time served in the State penitentiary after its imposition. Such credit we understand is conceded. That being true, no point can be made by the prisoner touching the surrender of custody by the State for the trial in the federal court, and resumption by the State of custody afterwards. The lawfulness of such temporary surrenders by both federal and State jurisdictions in order to facilitate the prompt and speedy trial of criminal charges, and the inability of the prisoner to object were fully discussed in Ponzi v. Fessenden, 258 U.S. 254, 42 S.Ct. 309, 66 L.Ed. 607, 22 A.L.R. 879. That decision controls this case in principle.

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

158 F.2d 282, 1946 U.S. App. LEXIS 2379, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lacey-v-sanford-ca5-1946.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack