Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-88-02874/USCOURTS-ca10-88-02874-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Frankie Joe Stacy
Appellant
George E. Sullivan
Appellee

Document Text:

• 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

FRANKIE JOE STACY, 

Petitioner-Appellant, 

) 

) 

) 

) 

FILED 

Uoited States C.ourt of Appeals 

Tenth Circuit 

JAN 2 8 1991 

&OBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

v. ) No. 88-2874 

GEORGE E. SULLIVAN, Warden, 

Penitentiary of New Mexico, 

Respondent-Appellee. 

) (D.C. No. 87-1179-JC) 

) (D. N.M.) 

) 

) 

) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before MOORE, BARRETT, Circuit Judges, arid SPARR,** District 

Judge. 

**Honorable Daniel 

District Court for 

designation. 

B. Sparr, Dis.trict Judge, 

the District of Colorado, 

United States 

sitting by 

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. 

submitted without oral argument. 

* 

The case is therefore ordered 

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 estoppal. 10th Cir. R. 

36.3. 

Appellate Case: 88-2874 Document: 010110080439 Date Filed: 01/28/1991 Page: 1 
Petitioner appeals from an order of the district court 

denying his petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed pursuant to 

28 u.s.c. S 2254. The district court also denied petitioner a 

certificate of probable cause in order to proceed on appeal to 

this court. We grant petitioner's application for a certificate 

of probable cause and affirm. 

In 1976, petitioner was sentenced to ten to fifty years' 

imprisonment in New Mexico after his conviction on charges of 

escape. In 1981, he was transferred to Arizona pursuant to the 

provisions of the Western Interstate Corrections Compact, N.M. 

Stat. Ann. S 31-5-4. Arizona authorities released petitioner on 

parole. While on parole, petitioner was arrested in Arizona on 

charges of attempted robbery. Following his arrest, petitioner 

was notified by New Mexico authorities that parole violation 

charges were pending. 

violation warrant. 

New Mexico did not execute a parole 

In 1984, eighteen months after his arrest, 

petitioner pled guilty to the Arizona charges and was sentenced to 

11.25 years' imprisonment. This sentence included credit for the 

eighteen months he had already been incarcerated. The order 

further read that the sentence was to be served concurrently with 

any sentence imposed by New Mexico on the parole violation 

charges. In 1987, petitioner coDDDenced this action seeking parole 

revocation proceedings. 1 

1 On appeal, counsel states that petitioner has since been 

returned to New Mexico, and his parole has been revoked. This 

petition is not moot because petitioner argues that he should 

receive a credit of five years on his parole revocation sentence 

for time spent in custody in Arizona. 

2 

Appellate Case: 88-2874 Document: 010110080439 Date Filed: 01/28/1991 Page: 2 
/ 

" On appeal, petitioner argues that the district court erred in 

holding his due process rights were not violated by New Mexico's 

failure to conduct a prompt probable cause hearing and preliminary 

parole revocation hearing and, further, such a hearing is required 

by the "Interstate Probation and Parole Compact." Petitioner also 

argues his due process rights were violated because New Mexico did 

not honor the provision of the Arizona sentence which required 

that any sentence imposed by New Mexico on the parole revocation 

charges would run concurrently with the Arizona sentence. 

A parolee has a liberty interest in his continued parole "as 

long as he substantially abides by the conditions of his parole." 

Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471, 479 (1972). Because that 

liberty interest lies within the protection of the fourteenth 

amendment, its "termination calls for some orderly process, 

however informal." Id. at 482. 

However, there is no requirement for an immediate hearing 

when a parolee is taken into custody either as a parole violator 

or, as here, on other charges. See Moody v. Daggett, 429 U.S. 78, 

86 (1976). Execution of the parole violation warrant and custody 

under that warrant trigger the due process protections of the 

fourteenth amendment. "[T]he loss of liberty as a parole violator 

does not occur until the parolee is taken into custody under the 

warrant." Id. at 87 (emphasis added). 

There is no requirement that a warrant be issued prior to 

disposition of state charges. ~ 18 u.s.c. S 4213(b). 

Petitioner admits he was arrested by Arizona authorities on 

attempted robbery charges. No violation of petitioner's 

3 

Appellate Case: 88-2874 Document: 010110080439 Date Filed: 01/28/1991 Page: 3 
constitutional rights occurred because New Mexico did not execute 

the warrant during the time he was in Arizona custody. 

The fact that petitioner was unable to post bail prior to his 

conviction because of a "parole hold" does not present 

constitutional error. See Piercy v. Black, 801 F.2d 1075, 1079, 

(8th Cir. 1986)(no constitutional error found where, as here, 

although denied bail, petitioner received credit for time served)~ 

Foster v. United States Parole Comm'n, 515 F. Supp 541, 544 (S.D. 

Ohio 1981). Further, none of the interstate compacts New Mexico 

has entered into, N.M. Stat. Ann. SS 31-5-1 through 31-5-19, 

requires an immediate parole revocation hearing. 

Petitioner did not raise his final argument to the district 

court because he had not yet been sentenced in New Mexico on the 

parole violation charge. Ordinarily we will not address arguments 

not raised first to the district court. Baker v. Penn Mut. Life 

Ins. Co., 788 F.2d 650, 663 (10th Cir. 1986). However, we note 

here that petitioner's argument is without merit. Arizona cannot 

control the method by which New Mexico administers its criminal 

justice system. Piercy •. 801 F. 2d at 1078. New Mexico need not 

abide by the terms of the Arizona sentence. 

The judgment of the United States District Court for the 

District of New Mexico is AFFIRMED. 

ENTERED FOR THE COURT 

PER CURIAM 

4 

Appellate Case: 88-2874 Document: 010110080439 Date Filed: 01/28/1991 Page: 4