Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-89-06226/USCOURTS-ca10-89-06226-0/pdf.json

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

---

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

CARL D. MCQUILLION, ) 

) 

Petitioner-Appellant, ) 

) 

F 1 LED 

United. States Courc of Appeals ,,..,., tl" ~:.,..,,.,Jj~ 

JAN 1 o 1990 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

V • ) No. 89-6226 

) 

DIRECTOR, OKLAHOMA DEPARTMENT) 

OF CORRECTIONS, ) 

) 

Respondent-Appellee. ) 

(D.C. No. CIV-89-588-T) 

(W.D. Oklahoma) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before SEYMOUR, TACHA, and EBEL, 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. 

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

submitted without oral argument. 

Carl D. McQuillion appeals the district court's denial of his 

petition for a writ of habeas corpus. McQuillion contends that 

the district court erred in determining that the State of Oklahoma 

is not obligated to return McQuillion to Oklahoma to complete his 

unexpired Oklahoma sentence, thus permitting McQuillion to serve a 

* 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: 89-6226 Document: 01019960596 Date Filed: 01/16/1990 Page: 1 
subsequent California sentence concurrently. We disagree and 

affirm. 

I . 

McQuillion initially was sentenced to two twenty year 

concurrent sentences for Robbery with Firearms in Oklahoma. While 

serving those sentences, McQuillion escaped. In 1974, Oklahoma 

officials learned that McQuillion was being held in California and 

was serving two life sentences there for murder. Oklahoma placed 

a "detainer'' on McQuillion. Oklahoma did not execute the detainer 

despite a provision of California law permitting prisoners to be 

released from California custody to that of another State. The 

time served in the other State is then credited toward the 

California sentence. 

II. 

McQuillion contends that Oklahoma violated his constitutional 

rights by refusing to remove him from California custody, as 

permitted by California law, to complete serving his Oklahoma 

sentences. California would count McQuillion's time served in 

Oklahoma toward his California sentences. McQuillion contends 

that Oklahoma has arbitrarily deprived him of the opportunity to 

shorten his total time to be served by refusing to accept custody 

pursuant to its detainer. 

Initially, we note that McQuillion's request for transfer 

back to Oklahoma is now moot. Oklahoma has accepted custody over 

McQuillion. 

Additionally, McQuillion requests day-for-day time credits on 

his Oklahoma sentences for the period starting with the date the 

2 

Appellate Case: 89-6226 Document: 01019960596 Date Filed: 01/16/1990 Page: 2 
detainer was lodged in September 1974 until he was transferred to 

Oklahoma. We decline to order such credits. 

McQuillion misapprehends his position. He owes a debt to two 

separate sovereigns, Oklahoma and California, each of which has 

the right to exact its debt independently of the other. Goode v. 

McCune, 543 F.2d 751, 753 (10th Cir. 1976). Oklahoma is under no 

obligation to accept McQuillion back into custody before he has 

exhausted his California sentences. McQuillion's California state 

law right to consecutive service of his California sentence if 

imprisoned in Oklahoma does not create a duty on Oklahoma to 

accept McQuillion back. Shields~ Beto, 370 F.2d 1003 (5th Cir. 

1967), is not to the contrary. Shields involved state inaction 

while the petitioner was not in custody; Texas had failed to file 

a detainer and permitted the petitioner to go free. Oklahoma 

filed such a detainer. Moreover, Oklahoma has never relinquished 

jurisdiction over McQuillion, a fact the Shields court found 

crucial; McQuillion escaped from Oklahoma correctional officials. 

As we observed in Newell v. Page, 362 F.2d 538, 539 (10th Cir. 

1966), cert denied, 385 U.S. 1015 (1967): 

Appellant has by his own act of escape interrupted his 

right to continuous service of his 1943 sentence and 

cannot complain of the acts of comity between sovereigns 

or the imposition and service of other lawful sentences 

that prolonged, again through his own conduct, the 

interruption of service of his original sentence. 

We hold that a sovereign is not obligated to execute a detainer so 

long as the defendant remains in the custody of another sovereign. 

III. 

Because we determine that Oklahoma is not obligated to 

execute a detainer while the petitioner remains in custody, we 

3 

Appellate Case: 89-6226 Document: 01019960596 Date Filed: 01/16/1990 Page: 3 
, . 

find no error in the district court's denial of McQuillion's 

petition for a writ of habeas corpus. The certificate of probable 

cause is GRANTED. The district court's order denying the writ of 

habeas corpus is AFFIRMED. 

McQuillion has also moved for a special order permitting him 

to own a personal electric typewriter. Petitioner already has 

access, albeit limited, to such typewriters. The motion is 

DENIED. The mandate shall issue forthwith. 

4 

ENTERED FOR THE COURT 

Deanell Reece Tacha 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 89-6226 Document: 01019960596 Date Filed: 01/16/1990 Page: 4