Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

Stanley Seltenrich v. Maurice H. Sigler, Warden, Angola State Prison

Stanley Seltenrich v. Maurice H. Sigler, Warden, Angl. State Prison, 228 F.2d 615 (5th Cir. 1956)

Type
Opinion
Court
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1956-03-26
Topic
general

PER CURIAM. Appealing from denial of writ of ha-beas corpus after exhausting similar relief in the Louisiana State Courts, including denial of writ of certiorari by the United States Supreme Court, 1 appellant contends that under a sentence 2 which is in law concurrent rather than consecutive, he is by continued imprisonment beyond one year deprived of his federal constitutional rights. We cannot agree. Construction of the sentence entered by one of its courts is primarily the ultimate responsibility of the Louisiana Supreme Court. It has determined 3 that the sentence was clearly intended to be, and therefore is, consecutive.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed Stanley Seltenrich v. Maurice H. Sigler, Warden, Angola State Prison. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by
2 opinions
SELTENRICH v. SIGLER,228 F.2d 615(5th Cir. 1956)
Stanley SELTENRICH, Appellant, v. Maurice H. SIGLER, Warden, Angola State
Prison, Appellee.
No. 15644.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
January 6, 1956.
Writ of Certiorari Denied March 26, 1956.
See 76 S.Ct. 558.
Page 616
Stanley Seltenrich, in pro. per.

Michael E. Culligan, New Orleans, Fred S. LeBlanc, Atty. Gen., of the State of Louisiana, for appellee.
Before HUTCHESON, Chief Judge, and BORAH and BROWN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
Appealing from denial of writ of habeas corpus after exhausting similar relief in the Louisiana State Courts, including denial of writ of certiorari by the United States Supreme Court,1appellant contends that under a sentence2which is in law concurrent rather than consecutive, he is by continued imprisonment beyond one year deprived of his federal constitutional rights.

We cannot agree. Construction of the sentence entered by one of its courts is primarily the ultimate responsibility of the Louisiana Supreme Court. It has determined3that the sentence was clearly intended to be, and therefore is, consecutive. If, in view of this action, any matter is left open for us in construing the sentence, we would ourselves agree with the Louisiana Courts; the intent is clear that sentence on the second charge is to commence after expiration of the service of sentence on the first, and so on down through the charges following in numerical sequence. United States v. Daugherty,269 U.S. 360,46 S.Ct. 156,157,70 L.Ed. 309; Fleish v. Swope, 9 Cir.,226 F.2d 310.

Judgment affirmed.Page 617
  1. 348 U.S. 931,75 S.Ct. 348. ↩
  2. "Cases No.

    "28,510 through 28,534 — (both nos. incluvisve) — State v. Stanley Seltenrich, alias Fred Seltenrich, and Mrs. Stanley Seltenrich, alias Carol Littleton: (Forgery):

    "In the above numbered and entitled cases, accused Stanley Seltenrich, alias Fred Seltenrich, present in open Court, withdrew his pleas of not guilty in each case, and upon motion of the Stateofor sentences, Court passed sentences as follows: I sentence you, Stanley Seltenrich, alias Fred Seltenrich, in each case, to serve one (1) year at hard labor in the Louisiana State Penitentiary at Angola, Louisiana, said sentences to run consecutively. Accused gave his age as 21 years, was remanded and Sheriff ordered to see that said sentences are carried into effect.
    * * * * *
    "28,796 — State vs. Stanley Seltenrich, and Mrs. Carol Littleton Seltenrich: (Aggravated Jail Break): Accused, Stanley Seltenrich, present in open Court, arraigned, pleaded guilty and upon motion of State for sentence, sentenced by the Court as follows: I sentence you, Stanley Seltenrich, to serve one (1) year at hard labor in the Louisiana State Penitentiary at Angola, Louisiana, said sentence to run consecutively with those imposed above in cases Nos. 28,510 through 28,534. Accused remanded." ↩


  3. "By Ponder, J: October 1, 1954 Stanley Seltenrich vs. No. 42,065 Maurice H. Sigler, Warden Angola State Prison

    In re Stanley Seltenrich applying for writs of habeas corpus

    Writs refused. We find no error in the ruling complained of." ↩