Clifford H. Davis v. U. S. Attorney Gen., Olin Blackwell, Warden, 432 F.2d 777 (5th Cir. 1970). · Go Syfert
Clifford H. Davis v. U. S. Attorney Gen., Olin Blackwell, Warden, 432 F.2d 777 (5th Cir. 1970). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
30 citation events (4 in the last 25 years) across 15 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Commonwealth v. Holmes (massappct, 2013-06-14)
Treatment trajectory · 1970 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1970 1998 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 7 distinct citers. How cited ↗
examined Cited as authority (rule) Commonwealth v. Holmes (3×)
Mass. App. Ct. · 2013 · confidence medium
Manning, supra at 395 n.9, quoting from Davis v. Attorney Gen., supra at 778.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Commonwealth v. Milton
Mass. · 1998 · confidence medium
“An allowance for prison time previously served under a void commitment does not reduce sentences imposed as a result of new and different crimes.” Id. at 395 n.9, quoting Davis v. Attorney Gen., 432 F.2d 777, 778 (5th Cir. 1970).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Marker v. State
Alaska Ct. App. · 1992 · confidence medium
Id. at 778.
cited Cited as authority (rule) Kenneth Henley v. Willie E. Johnson, Warden
11th Cir. · 1989 · confidence medium
Id. at 778. 4 The facts of the instant case fall squarely within the rule stated in Davis.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Sancinella v. Henderson
N.D. Ga. · 1974 · confidence medium
Petitioner emjdiasizes that in the Davis ease the Court rejected the “contention that while serving time under an invalid sentence [petitioner] managed to earn credit against a future unrelated sentence for a crime not yet perpetrated.” 432 F.2d at 778.
cited Cited "see" State v. Doherty
S.D. · 1979 · signal: see · confidence high
See Davis v. U. S. Attorney General, 432 F.2d 777 (5th Cir. 1970); United States ex rel.
cited Cited "see, e.g." Mize v. United States
N.D. Miss. · 1971 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e. g., Davis v. United States Attorney General, 432 F.2d 777 (5 Cir. 1970) ; United States ex rel.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Clifford H. DAVIS, Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
U. S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Olin Blackwell, Warden, Et Al., Respondents-Appellees
777.
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
Oct 23, 1970.
432 F.2d 777
Clifford H. Davis, pro se., John W. Stokes, Jr., U. S. Atty., Allen I. Hirseh, Asst. U. S. Atty., Atlanta, Ga., for respondents-appellees.
Thornberry, Morgan, Clark.
Cited by 1 opinion  |  Published
[*778] PER CURIAM:

This appeal is taken from an order of the district court denying the petition of a federal convict for a writ of mandamus directing appellee to recompute his jail time. We affirm.

On December 6, 1956, appellant was sentenced to consecutive terms of ten and two years by the District Court of Nebraska after pleading guilty to violations of 26 U.S.C. § 2553 and 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a) and (d).

Appellant served time in the Atlanta penitentiary, and then on May 24, 1968, while on mandatory release, appellant violated 18 U.S.C. § 2113 for which he was convicted and sentenced to fourteen years imprisonment by the District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi. Mandatory release on the prior sentences was not revoked.

On July 8, 1969, the District Court of Nebraska granted appellant’s motion to vacate the Nebraska sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. In July, 1969, appellant pleaded guilty to those same charges and was assessed sentences of ten years and two years, to run concurrently with the fourteen-year sentence he was then serving on the Mississippi conviction. He was given credit toward the 1969 Nebraska sentence for the 3,775 days he had previously served on the vacated sentence for the same offenses. Appellant now claims that the 3,775 days should also be credited toward the fourteen-year Mississippi sentence he is now serving because all sentences were made to run concurrently.

The basis of appellant’s contention is that while serving time under an invalid sentence he managed to earn credit against a future unrelated sentence for a crime not yet perpetrated. We cannot accept such a proposition. An allowance for prison time previously served under a void commitment does not reduce sentences imposed as a result of new and different crimes. U. S. ex rel. Smith v. Rundle, 285 F.Supp. 965 (E.D.Pa.1968); Thacker v. Peyton, 289 F.Supp. 368 (W.D.Va.1968). The Mississippi sentence therefore remains undisturbed since it was incurred for the commission of an offense unrelated to the original crime and not even in existence when appellant earned the credit in the Atlanta penitentiary. Cf. Fitzgerald v. Sanford, 145 F.2d 228, 5 Cir., 1944, cert. den. 323 U.S. 806, 65 S.Ct. 311, 89 L.Ed. 643.

The order of the court below is

Affirmed.