Thomas William Bonnie v. Clarence T. Gladden
This text of 377 F.2d 555 (Thomas William Bonnie v. Clarence T. Gladden) 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.
Opinion
Thomas William Bonnie was convicted and sentenced under the Oregon Contribution of Delinquency Statute O.R.S. 167.210. He sought habeas corpus relief in federal district court, presenting a substantial argument that as interpreted by the Supreme Court of Oregon in State v. Stone, 111 Or. 227, 226 P. 430 (1924), the Oregon statute lacks legally fixed standards of guilt and is therefore void under the Fourteenth Amendment. Giaccio v. State of Pennsylvania, 382 U.S. 399, 402-403, 86 S.Ct. 518, 15 L.Ed.2d 447 (1966). The district court denied relief.
While his appeal was pending in this court, Bonnie completed his sentence and was discharged from confinement without condition or restriction. In light of this development we are without power to deal with the merits of Bonnie’s claim under the interpretation of the “in custody” requirement of 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c) (1) (1964) adopted in Parker v. Ellis, 362 U.S. 574, 80 S.Ct. 909, 4 L.Ed.2d 963 (1963).
The case must therefore be remanded to the district court with instructions to vacate the order appealed from and dismiss the application for habeas corpus.
So ordered.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
377 F.2d 555, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/thomas-william-bonnie-v-clarence-t-gladden-ca9-1967.