Lawrence Ray Yant v. Olin G. Blackwell, Warden, United States Penitentiary, Atlanta, Georgia

Fifth Circuit

Lawrence Ray Yant v. Olin G. Blackwell, Warden, United States Penitentiary, Atlanta, Georgia

396 F.2d 808, 1968 U.S. App. LEXIS 6531

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedJune 14, 1968

Docket25563

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 396 F.2d 808 (Lawrence Ray Yant v. Olin G. Blackwell, Warden, United States Penitentiary, Atlanta, Georgia) 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

Lawrence Ray Yant v. Olin G. Blackwell, Warden, United States Penitentiary, Atlanta, Georgia, 396 F.2d 808, 1968 U.S. App. LEXIS 6531 (5th Cir. 1968).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Lawrence Ray Yant appeals from the district court’s denial of his petition for habeas corpus. While appeal was pending relative to his conviction for aggravated post office robbery, 18 U.S.C. § 2114, appellant was taken from a United States penitentiary to Indiana for prosecution on a state charge of robbery. The writ of habeas corpus ad prosequendum issued by the state court authorized his presence for trial but did not purport to authorize his subsequent service of any state sentence. He was convicted of robbery in state court and, by an error of the sheriff, was taken to an Indiana state prison on July 20, 1966 to commence service of the sentence. When the federal authorities learned of this, they immediately took steps to obtain appellant’s return to their custody, which was effected on or about August 9, 1966, after the state court on August 4, 1966 had granted his motion for new trial.

The prison record showed that appellant lost no credit for time served on his federal sentence as a result of time spent in Indiana. Subsequently, his federal conviction was affirmed. United States v. Yant, 6th Cir. 1967, 373 F.2d 543.

The district court held that Yant was merely “loaned” to the state for a limited purpose and that the federal government never acquiesced in his service of the state sentence. The record abundantly supports this finding. His temporary release to the state by the federal government was a matter of comity between sovereigns of which he cannot be heard to complain. Ponzi v. Fessenden, 1922, 258 U.S. 254, 42 S.Ct. 309, 66 L.Ed. 607; Jones v. Taylor, 10th Cir. 1964, 327 F.2d 493, cert. denied, 377 U.S. 1002, 84 S.Ct.1937, 12 L.Ed.2d 1051; Craig v. Hunter, 10th Cir. 1948, 167 F.2d 721; Stamphill v. Johnston, 9th Cir. 1943, 136 F.2d 291, cert. denied, 320 U. S. 766, 64 S.Ct. 70, 88 L.Ed. 457.

The 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:

Lawrence Ray Yant appeals from the district court’s denial of his petition for habeas corpus. While appeal was pending relative to his conviction for aggravated post office robbery, 18 U.S.C. § 2114, appellant was taken from a United States penitentiary to Indiana for prosecution on a state charge of robbery. The writ of habeas corpus ad prosequendum issued by the state court authorized his presence for trial but did not purport to authorize his subsequent service of any state sentence. He was convicted of robbery in state court and, by an error of the sheriff, was taken to an Indiana state prison on July 20, 1966 to commence service of the sentence. When the federal authorities learned of this, they immediately took steps to obtain appellant’s return to their custody, which was effected on or about August 9, 1966, after the state court on August 4, 1966 had granted his motion for new trial.

The prison record showed that appellant lost no credit for time served on his federal sentence as a result of time spent in Indiana. Subsequently, his federal conviction was affirmed. United States v. Yant, 6th Cir. 1967, 373 F.2d 543.

The district court held that Yant was merely “loaned” to the state for a limited purpose and that the federal government never acquiesced in his service of the state sentence. The record abundantly supports this finding. His temporary release to the state by the federal government was a matter of comity between sovereigns of which he cannot be heard to complain. Ponzi v. Fessenden, 1922, 258 U.S. 254, 42 S.Ct. 309, 66 L.Ed. 607; Jones v. Taylor, 10th Cir. 1964, 327 F.2d 493, cert. denied, 377 U.S. 1002, 84 S.Ct.1937, 12 L.Ed.2d 1051; Craig v. Hunter, 10th Cir. 1948, 167 F.2d 721; Stamphill v. Johnston, 9th Cir. 1943, 136 F.2d 291, cert. denied, 320 U. S. 766, 64 S.Ct. 70, 88 L.Ed. 457.

The Judgment of the district court is

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

396 F.2d 808, 1968 U.S. App. LEXIS 6531, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lawrence-ray-yant-v-olin-g-blackwell-warden-united-states-penitentiary-ca5-1968.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack