Richard P. Bergeron v. Maurice H. Sigler (As Warden, Louisiana State Penitentiary)

Fifth Circuit

Richard P. Bergeron v. Maurice H. Sigler (As Warden, Louisiana State Penitentiary)

241 F.2d 412

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedJanuary 25, 1957

Docket16150_1

StatusPublished

This text of 241 F.2d 412 (Richard P. Bergeron v. Maurice H. Sigler (As Warden, Louisiana State Penitentiary)) 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

Richard P. Bergeron v. Maurice H. Sigler (As Warden, Louisiana State Penitentiary), 241 F.2d 412 (5th Cir. 1957).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Being of opinion that the petition for habeas corpus was pijoperly denied for the reasons stated in of the district court, 1 affirmed. the minute entry the judgment is

Affirmed.

1

. “The petitioner has filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus alleging that he is unlawfully in state custody in the Louisiana State Penitentiary at Angola. He alleges that he was convicted and sentenced for attempted aggravated rape on one occasion in the state court and that he was convicted and sentenced for armed robbery on another, and that the court in sentencing him on the latter occasion did not indicate whether or not sentence imposed at that time was to run concurrently with, or consecutive to, the sentence imposed under the aggravated rape charge, and that therefore, under the law, the sentences were to run concurrently. He further alleges that he has served the maximum time under the sentences if concurrent, and that applications fop writ of habeas corpus in state district court, state supreme court, and application for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of the United States have all been denied. He asks this Court to grant a writ of habeas corpus for the reason that the sentences were concurrent, that he has served the maximum time under them, that he has exhausted his state.remedies, and that he is entitled to freedom.

“It Is Ordered that plaintiff’s petition to proceed in forma pauperis is granted.

“It Is Further Ordered that plaintiff’s petition for writ of habeas corpus be and the same is hereby denied.

“Reasons

“It appears from th the writ that the applje tied thereto. 28 U.S. question whether his se: current or consecutive state law which has bee¿ ly to petitioner by the Louisiana. Bergeron v. Supreme Court of La .1955, 28 U.S.C. § 2241 ( application for ant is not enti2243. The 4itences were con-is a matter of decided adverse-supreme Court of Sigler, Warden, November 16, c).

“ (Initii led) J. S. W.”

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

PER CURIAM.

Being of opinion that the petition for habeas corpus was pijoperly denied for the reasons stated in of the district court, 1 affirmed. the minute entry the judgment is

Affirmed.

1

. “The petitioner has filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus alleging that he is unlawfully in state custody in the Louisiana State Penitentiary at Angola. He alleges that he was convicted and sentenced for attempted aggravated rape on one occasion in the state court and that he was convicted and sentenced for armed robbery on another, and that the court in sentencing him on the latter occasion did not indicate whether or not sentence imposed at that time was to run concurrently with, or consecutive to, the sentence imposed under the aggravated rape charge, and that therefore, under the law, the sentences were to run concurrently. He further alleges that he has served the maximum time under the sentences if concurrent, and that applications fop writ of habeas corpus in state district court, state supreme court, and application for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of the United States have all been denied. He asks this Court to grant a writ of habeas corpus for the reason that the sentences were concurrent, that he has served the maximum time under them, that he has exhausted his state.remedies, and that he is entitled to freedom.

“It Is Ordered that plaintiff’s petition to proceed in forma pauperis is granted.

“It Is Further Ordered that plaintiff’s petition for writ of habeas corpus be and the same is hereby denied.

“Reasons

“It appears from th the writ that the applje tied thereto. 28 U.S. question whether his se: current or consecutive state law which has bee¿ ly to petitioner by the Louisiana. Bergeron v. Supreme Court of La .1955, 28 U.S.C. § 2241 ( application for ant is not enti2243. The 4itences were con-is a matter of decided adverse-supreme Court of Sigler, Warden, November 16, c).

“ (Initii led) J. S. W.”

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

241 F.2d 412, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/richard-p-bergeron-v-maurice-h-sigler-as-warden-louisiana-state-ca5-1957.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack