Paul Courter Holland v. Clarence T. Gladden, Warden, Oregon State Penitentiary

Ninth Circuit

Paul Courter Holland v. Clarence T. Gladden, Warden, Oregon State Penitentiary

338 F.2d 52, 1964 U.S. App. LEXIS 4013

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedNovember 2, 1964

Docket19292_1

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 338 F.2d 52 (Paul Courter Holland v. Clarence T. Gladden, Warden, Oregon State Penitentiary) 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

Paul Courter Holland v. Clarence T. Gladden, Warden, Oregon State Penitentiary, 338 F.2d 52, 1964 U.S. App. LEXIS 4013 (9th Cir. 1964).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Paul Holland wants out from the Oregon State Penitentiary, where he is presently confined under a twenty-year sentence for rape, and a five-year sentence for burglary. By this, and other actions, he has challenged the validity of his confinement. Federal relief has uniformly been denied on the ground that, in any event, he is validly confined under the five-year sentence, which he concededly has never attacked. See McNally v. Hill, 293 U.S. 131, 55 S.Ct. 24, 79 L.Ed. 238 (1934).

He now seeks an order directing the state court to expunge the record of his conviction on the rape charge. But even if such power exists, relief would depend on Holland’s showing that he is presently entitled to his liberty, a showing he has never made. He contends, however, that accumulated good-time credit, coupled with time actually served, has satisfied the valid five-year sentence under the provisions of ORS 421.120. This is mere *53 argument, totally unsupported by anything in the record. Having failed to demonstrate any basis for the relief he requests, we must dismiss his petition without consideration of whether we possess the power Holland would have us invoke.

The district court’s judgment is affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

Paul Holland wants out from the Oregon State Penitentiary, where he is presently confined under a twenty-year sentence for rape, and a five-year sentence for burglary. By this, and other actions, he has challenged the validity of his confinement. Federal relief has uniformly been denied on the ground that, in any event, he is validly confined under the five-year sentence, which he concededly has never attacked. See McNally v. Hill, 293 U.S. 131, 55 S.Ct. 24, 79 L.Ed. 238 (1934).

He now seeks an order directing the state court to expunge the record of his conviction on the rape charge. But even if such power exists, relief would depend on Holland’s showing that he is presently entitled to his liberty, a showing he has never made. He contends, however, that accumulated good-time credit, coupled with time actually served, has satisfied the valid five-year sentence under the provisions of ORS 421.120. This is mere *53 argument, totally unsupported by anything in the record. Having failed to demonstrate any basis for the relief he requests, we must dismiss his petition without consideration of whether we possess the power Holland would have us invoke.

The district court’s judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

338 F.2d 52, 1964 U.S. App. LEXIS 4013, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/paul-courter-holland-v-clarence-t-gladden-warden-oregon-state-ca9-1964.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack