Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-90-05005/USCOURTS-ca10-90-05005-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 

---

...... • 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

FLOYD AUGUST DAVIS, JR., ) 

) 

Plaintiff-Appellant, ) 

FI LED 

United Stares Coun of Appeals 

Tenth Circuit 

r v 3 o 1990 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

) 

v. ) 

) 

RON CHAMPION, Warden, C.C.C.; ) 

and ATTORNEY GENERAL, State of ) 

Oklahoma, ) 

No. 90-5005 

(D.C. No. 89-C-378-C) 

(N.D. Oklahoma) 

) 

Defendants-Appellees. ) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before, MCKAY, MOORE, and BRORBY, Circuit Judges. 

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel 

has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially 

assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 

*This order and judgment has no precedential value and shall not 

be cited, or used by any court within the Tenth Circuit, except 

for purposes of establishing the doctrines of the law of the case, 

res judicata, or collateral estoppel. 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 

Appellate Case: 90-5005 Document: 010110036114 Date Filed: 05/30/1990 Page: 1 
-

34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The cause is therefore ordered 

submitted without oral argument. 

This is an appeal from a denial of a state prisoner's 

petition for writ of habeas corpus. The district court denied the 

writ because petitioner was not "in custody" within the meaning of 

28 U.S.C. § 2254. We affirm that decision for the reasons stated 

by the magistrate and the district judge. 

Petitioner claims the court's reasoning is wrong because he 

is in custody as a consequence of sentences imposed consecutively 

to the sentence he now attacks. He therefore claims he is still 

in custody pursuant to that sentence even though it has been fully 

served. 

What petitioner has failed to perceive is that even if the 

sentence of twenty years he now attacks is voided, as he wishes, 

he would still remain in custody on the unexpired time yet to be 

served on the remaining sentences. Petitioner was first sentenced 

on May 27, 1968, to a term of five years. Thereafter, on 

October 21, 1968, he was given the twenty-year sentence he now 

attacks, followed by a five-year sentence on December 13, 1968, 

and a fifteen-year sentence on March 11, 1969. Petitioner also 

states in 1984 he was sentenced to an additional term of six 

years. All of these terms were consecutive, placing his 

presumptive release date sometime in the year 2019. Thus, even if 

his twenty-year sentence were voided, he would still be subject to 

an unexpired term of some seven years. That fact distinguishes 

his cases from those upon which he relies. 

-2-

Appellate Case: 90-5005 Document: 010110036114 Date Filed: 05/30/1990 Page: 2 
• V 

The district court correctly determined petitioner is not in 

custody on the sentence he now attacks. 

district court is AFFIRMED. 

The judgment of the 

Entered for the Court 

John P. Moore 

Circuit Judge 

-3-

Appellate Case: 90-5005 Document: 010110036114 Date Filed: 05/30/1990 Page: 3