United States v. John Morgan Williamson

469 F.2d 88, 1972 U.S. App. LEXIS 6855
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
DecidedNovember 6, 1972
Docket72-2239
StatusPublished
Cited by16 cases

This text of 469 F.2d 88 (United States v. John Morgan Williamson) 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
United States v. John Morgan Williamson, 469 F.2d 88, 1972 U.S. App. LEXIS 6855 (5th Cir. 1972).

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Williamson was found guilty of unlawful escape from the Federal Correctional Institution, Seagoville, Texas, 1 and sentenced to thirteen months’ confinement, the sentence to run consecutively to the sentence he was serving under a previous conviction for a violation of the Dyer Act. 2 He claims that he has been subjected to double jeopardy under the Fifth Amendment because he had already administratively lost “good time” deductions from the term of the earlier sentence. Williamson further complains that the district court erred in refusing to consider his § 2255 motion asserting that the charge of escape arose out of a void judgment entered in the district court of New Mexico and that the judgment of the district court for the Western District of Louisiana revoking his probation was also void. We find Williamson’s contentions without merit and affirm.

In Keaveny v. United States, 5 Cir. 1969, 405 F.2d 821, where a similar double jeopardy issue was raised, we summarily disposed of it saying: “This contention is without merit. Administrative discipline of an escapee does not prohibit criminal prosecution for the escape.”

The court below properly refused to consider Williamson’s § 2255 motion. The statute clearly provides that a prisoner who desires to collaterally attack his sentence “may move the court which imposed the sentence to vacate, set aside or correct the sentence.” The collateral attack must be filed in the convicting court. Light v. United States, 5 Cir. 1970, 430 F.2d 932; Walker v. United States, 5 Cir. 1970, 429 F.2d 1301.

Affirmed.

1

. 18 U.S.C.A. § 751(a).

2

. 18 U.S.C.A. §§ 2311-2313.

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

Related

United States v. Daniel
Fifth Circuit, 2007
Rogers v. State
44 S.W.3d 244 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 2001)
Donald Rogers v. State
Court of Appeals of Texas, 2001
State v. McKenzie
542 N.W.2d 616 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1996)
Hernandez v. State
904 S.W.2d 808 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1995)
United States v. Coder
39 M.J. 1006 (U.S. Army Court of Military Review, 1994)
State v. Fonder
469 N.W.2d 922 (Court of Appeals of Wisconsin, 1991)
Glick v. State
623 S.W.2d 546 (Court of Appeals of Arkansas, 1981)
State v. Kjeldahl
278 N.W.2d 58 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1979)
United States v. Larry Edward Stead
528 F.2d 257 (Eighth Circuit, 1976)
United States v. Bobby Joe Duke
527 F.2d 386 (Fifth Circuit, 1976)
Commonwealth v. Sneed
322 N.E.2d 435 (Massachusetts Appeals Court, 1975)
Shuman v. Sheriff of Carson City
523 P.2d 841 (Nevada Supreme Court, 1974)
State v. Maddox
208 N.W.2d 274 (Nebraska Supreme Court, 1973)
Cherry v. Goslin
350 F. Supp. 1162 (W.D. Louisiana, 1972)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
469 F.2d 88, 1972 U.S. App. LEXIS 6855, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-john-morgan-williamson-ca5-1972.