Lawrence Frederick Carlson v. Tany S. Hong, Attorney General, State of Hawaii

Ninth Circuit

Lawrence Frederick Carlson v. Tany S. Hong, Attorney General, State of Hawaii

707 F.2d 367, 1983 U.S. App. LEXIS 28764

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedApril 18, 1983

Docket82-4557

StatusPublished

Cited by8 cases

This text of 707 F.2d 367 (Lawrence Frederick Carlson v. Tany S. Hong, Attorney General, State of Hawaii) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Lawrence Frederick Carlson v. Tany S. Hong, Attorney General, State of Hawaii, 707 F.2d 367, 1983 U.S. App. LEXIS 28764 (9th Cir. 1983).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

The district court, 545 F.Supp. 352, ruled that a state prisoner is not entitled to section 2254 relief for a violation of article IV(e) of the Interstate Agreement on Detainers Act. To be cognizable under section 2254, an error must be “ ‘a fundamental defect which inherently results in a complete miscarriage of justice,’ ” and it must present “ ‘exceptional circumstances where the need for the remedy afforded by the writ of habeas corpus is apparent.’ ” Davis v. United States, 417 U.S. 333, 346, 94 S.Ct. 2298, 2305, 41 L.Ed.2d 109 (1974), quoting Hill v. United States, 368 U.S. 424, 82 S.Ct. 468, 7 L.Ed.2d 417 (1962). We have held that an article IV(e) violation does not rise to the required level of seriousness. Hitchcock v. United States, 580 F.2d 964 (9th Cir.1978).

Cody v. Morris, 623 F.2d 101 (9th Cir.1980), is not to the contrary. That case dealt with article IV(c), not article IV(e). Article IV(c) requires that the detainee be brought to trial within 120 days. This has its roots in the constitutional provision for speedy trial. There is no similar fundamental right under article IV(e).

AFFIRMED.

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

PER CURIAM:

The district court, 545 F.Supp. 352, ruled that a state prisoner is not entitled to section 2254 relief for a violation of article IV(e) of the Interstate Agreement on Detainers Act. To be cognizable under section 2254, an error must be “ ‘a fundamental defect which inherently results in a complete miscarriage of justice,’ ” and it must present “ ‘exceptional circumstances where the need for the remedy afforded by the writ of habeas corpus is apparent.’ ” Davis v. United States, 417 U.S. 333, 346, 94 S.Ct. 2298, 2305, 41 L.Ed.2d 109 (1974), quoting Hill v. United States, 368 U.S. 424, 82 S.Ct. 468, 7 L.Ed.2d 417 (1962). We have held that an article IV(e) violation does not rise to the required level of seriousness. Hitchcock v. United States, 580 F.2d 964 (9th Cir.1978).

Cody v. Morris, 623 F.2d 101 (9th Cir.1980), is not to the contrary. That case dealt with article IV(c), not article IV(e). Article IV(c) requires that the detainee be brought to trial within 120 days. This has its roots in the constitutional provision for speedy trial. There is no similar fundamental right under article IV(e).

AFFIRMED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

707 F.2d 367, 1983 U.S. App. LEXIS 28764, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lawrence-frederick-carlson-v-tany-s-hong-attorney-general-state-of-ca9-1983.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack