Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit

United States ex rel. Kimler v. Ragen

147 F.2d 137

Type
Opinion
Court
Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1945-02-02
Topic
general

PER CURIAM. Appellant, a prisoner in the Illinois State Penitentiary, appeals from an order of the District Court dismissing his petition for writ of habeas corpus. The record shows that the court appointed counsel to represent petitioner in the presentation of his petition for the writ, and that hearing was had on the petition and respondent’s motion to dismiss. According to appellant’s petition, he was convicted of forgery and sentenced to a term of one to fourteen years in the penitentiary, in 1926. In 1928 he was released on a so-called “banishment parole” under the terms of which he left the state of Illinois, going first to Iowa and later to California.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed United States ex rel. Kimler v. Ragen. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by
4 opinions
UNITED STATES v. RAGEN,147 F.2d 137(7th Cir. 1945)
UNITED STATES ex rel. KIMLER v. RAGEN, Warden.
No. 8700.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.
February 2, 1945.
Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division; Philip L. Sullivan,

Petition by the United States, on the relation of Walker Kimler, for a writ of habeas corpus against Joseph E. Ragen, Warden, Illinois State Penitentiary. From an order dismissing the petition, relator appeals.

Affirmed.
David R. Landau, of Chicago, and Walker Kimler, pro se, for appellant.

George F. Barrett and William C. Wines, both of Chicago, Ill., for appellee.
Before SPARKS, MAJOR, and KERNER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
Appellant, a prisoner in the Illinois State Penitentiary, appeals from an order of the District Court dismissing his petition for writ of habeas corpus. The record shows that the court appointed counsel to represent petitioner in the presentation of his petition for the writ, and that hearing was had on the petition and respondent's motion to dismiss.

According to appellant's petition, he was convicted of forgery and sentenced to a term of one to fourteen years in the penitentiary, in 1926. In 1928 he was released on a so-called "banishment parole" under the terms of which he left the state of Illinois, going first to Iowa and later to California. In 1936, he was convicted of a felony in California and given a sentence of one year to life. In 1937, a detainer was filed against him by the Illinois authorities, and upon his release on parole from the California prison in 1943, he was apprehended by Illinois officers and returned to Illinois where he is now serving the balance of his 1926 sentence.

Under these facts we find no merit in appellant's contention that his full sentence expired in 1940, and that the state of Illinois had no power thereafter to incarcerate him for further service of the 1926 sentence. See People ex rel. Ross v. Becker,382 Ill. 404,47 N.E.2d 475; Purdue v. Ragen,375 Ill. 98,30 N.E.2d 637.
Order affirmed.Page 138
Page 579