|
|
Nelson v. George, 399 U.S. 224 (1970)
Contents:
Show Summary
Hide Summary
General SummaryThis case is from a collection containing the full text of over 16,000 Supreme Court cases from 1793 to the present. The body of Supreme Court decisions are, effectively, the final interpretation of the Constitution. Only an amendment to the Constitution can permanently overturn an interpretation and this has happened only four times in American history.
Nelson v. George, 399 U.S. 224 (1970)
Nelson v. George No. 595 Argued March 31, 1970 Decided June 29, 1970 399 U.S. 224
CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
Syllabus
Respondent, who is serving a sentence under a California conviction, was tried, convicted, and sentenced in North Carolina, and a detainer, requested by North Carolina, was noted by petitioner California warden. Respondent sought a writ of habeas corpus from a Federal District Court in California, attacking his North Carolina conviction. His application was denied, and, in his petition for rehearing, he argued that the detainer acted as a form of constructive custody as it adversely affected his parole potential and the degree of security in which he was detained. Rehearing was denied on the basis of McNally v. Hill, 293 U.S. 131, and respondent appealed to the Court of Appeals. The intervening decision in Peyton v. Rowe, 391 U.S. 54, overruled McNally v. Hill, and held that a state prisoner serving consecutive sentences in the forum State is "in custody" for purposes of jurisdiction for collateral attack. The Court of Appeals held that the District Court had jurisdiction to consider respondent’s claims concerning the impact of the detainer.
Held:
1. Since the California courts, which are not required to enforce a foreign penal judgment, have not been presented with the question of what effect, if any, they will give the North Carolina detainer in terms of respondent’s present "custody," respondent has not exhausted his California remedies. P. 229.
2. The Federal District Court should retain jurisdiction of the petition for writ of habeas corpus pending respondent’s application to the California courts for appropriate relief if he establishes his claim that the detainer interferes with relief that California might grant in the absence of the detainer. Pp. 229-230.
410 F.2d 1179, affirmed.
Contents:
Chicago: U.S. Supreme Court, "Syllabus," Nelson v. George, 399 U.S. 224 (1970) in 399 U.S. 224 399 U.S. 225. Original Sources, accessed November 24, 2024, http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=1WKB1NXDZSMY74V.
MLA: U.S. Supreme Court. "Syllabus." Nelson v. George, 399 U.S. 224 (1970), in 399 U.S. 224, page 399 U.S. 225. Original Sources. 24 Nov. 2024. http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=1WKB1NXDZSMY74V.
Harvard: U.S. Supreme Court, 'Syllabus' in Nelson v. George, 399 U.S. 224 (1970). cited in 1970, 399 U.S. 224, pp.399 U.S. 225. Original Sources, retrieved 24 November 2024, from http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=1WKB1NXDZSMY74V.
|