Opinion ID: 3010227
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Maleng v. Cook

Text: The Commonwealth contends that under Maleng v. Cook, 490 U.S. 488 (1989), district court lacks jurisdiction; hence, we must examine that case. Cook, the pet in Maleng, was convicted of robbery in 1958 in state court and was sentenced to twe years imprisonment. Id. at 489. While on parole from that sentence, he was convic three state crimes and, in 1978, was sentenced to two life terms and one ten year t Id. The 1958 conviction increased by several years the mandatory minimum term Cook required to serve. Id. Cook was also convicted of a federal crime while on parole that sentence was to be served before the 1978 state sentences. Id. While in feder prison, Cook filed a habeas corpus petition attacking the 1958 conviction, claiming it had been used illegally to enhance the 1978 state sentences. Id. The district dismissed the petition for lack of jurisdiction because, having served that sentenc was not in custody for the purposes of an attack on the 1958 sentence. Id. at 49 The Court of Appeals reversed. It held that Cook was in custody under 1958 conviction because that conviction had been used to enhance the length of his sentences for his 1978 convictions. Cook v. Maleng, 847 F.2d 616, 618-19 (9th Cir. The Supreme Court affirmed, but differed from the Court of Appeals in its reasoning think that [the Court of Appeals'] interpretation stretches the language `in custod far. Maleng, 490 U.S. at 491. The Court observed that it had never held . . . t habeas petitioner may be `in custody' under a conviction when the sentence imposed that conviction has fully expired at the time his petition is filed. Id. A petit does not remain in custody under a conviction, the Court held, after the sentenc imposed for it has fully expired, merely because of the possibility that the prior 6 conviction will be used to enhance the sentences imposed for any subsequent crimes which he is convicted.0 Id. at 492. Nevertheless, the Court did not reverse the Court of Appeals' decision be under Peyton v. Rowe, 391 U.S. 54 (1968), Cook could be considered in custody for 1978 sentences, even though he had not started serving them. The Court construed h petition, with the deference to which pro se litigants are entitled, as challengi 1978 sentences. Id. at 493. The Court expressed no view on the extent to which t conviction itself may be subject to challenge in the attack upon the 1978 sentences it was used to enhance. Id. at 494.