Document: 490 U.S. 488 109 S.Ct. 1923 104 L.Ed.2d 540 Norm MALENG, etc., et al., Petitionersv.Mark Edwin COOK. No. 88-357. May 15, 1989. Kenneth O. Eikenberry, Olympia, Wash., for petitioners. John B. Midgley, Seattle, respondent. PER CURIAM. 1 In 1958, respondent was convicted of robbery in Washington state court and sentenced to 20 years imprisonment; th § sentence expired by its terms 1978. 1976, while on parole from that sentence, he two counts assault one count aiding a prisoner escape; 1978, the State him life 10-year term those convictions. These sentences were maximum under Washington's then-indeterminate sentencing scheme, with minimum be set Board Prison Terms Paroles. Under law, 1958 conviction will increase several mandatory which have serve his 1978 sentences. 2 1976 also bank conspiracy federal 30 imprisonment. He is currently serving penitentiary California, but has lodged detainer against prison authorities. Respondent scheduled begin imposed upon courts at expiration term. 3 1985, prison, filed pro se petition habeas corpus relief United States District Court Western Washington. Respondent's listed as "conviction attack," alleging it invalid because had not been given competency hearing, even though there reasonable doubt stand trial. alleged used illegally enhance sentences, yet begun serve.* The dismissed lack subject-matter jurisdiction, holding "in custody" purposes attack already expired. Appeals Ninth Circuit reversed. 847 F.2d 616 (1988). held still conviction, expired, convictions, serve. Id., 618-619. We granted certiorari review this interpretation requirement. 941, 363, 102 353 conclude presently 4 statute gives district jurisdiction entertain petitions only persons who are custody violation Constitution or laws treaties States." 28 U.S.C. 2241(c)(3) (emphasis added); see 2254(a). interpreted statutory language requiring petitioner time filed. See Carafas v. LaVallee, 391 234, 238, 88 1556, 1560, 554 (1968). case, may whose fully filed, simply length current future subsequent conviction. think stretches too far. 5 Our required physically confined order challenge ntence corpus. Jones Cunningham, 371 236, 83 373, 9 285 (1963), example, we placed unexpired sentence. reasoned petitioner's release physical confinement question unconditional; instead, explicitly conditioned reporting regularly officer, remaining particular community, residence, job, refraining certain activities. 242, S.Ct., 376-377; Hensley Municipal Court, San Jose-Milpitas Judicial Dist., Santa Clara County, 411 345, 93 1571, 36 294 (1973); Braden 30th Ky., 410 484, 1123, 35 443 (1973). 6 never held, however, when Indeed, our decision supra, strongly implies contrary. Carafas, application actually incarcerated sought attack, unconditionally discharged appeal denial below pending before Court. argued unconditional discharge rendered case moot. rejected argument, "collateral consequences" conviction—his inability vote, engage businesses, hold public office, juror—prevented being U.S., 237-238, 1559. went say, raised "substantial issue" 1559-1560. While ultimately found requirement satisfied well, rested collateral consequences fact challenged Ibid. negative implication is, course, once completely themselves sufficient render an individual it. 7 presented whether remains after merely possibility prior any crimes convicted. does not. very liberally construed habeas, extended situation where suffers no present restraint Since almost all habitual offender statutes, many provide specific enhancement basis contrary ruling would mean could nonetheless habeas. This read out clear opinion supra. 8 enhanced materialized, do requires different conclusion. When second imposed, pursuant therefore custody." think, ch llenge them. McNally Hill, 293 131, 55 24, 79 L.Ed. 238 (1934), meant attack. Were rule But Peyton Rowe, 54, 1549, 426 (1968), overruled consecutive Commonwealth Virginia 10 rather than another Washington, factual difference Rowe result. authorities ensure conclusion respondent's returned Alabama, subject Alabama jailers Kentucky officials, purpose outstanding charge rested. together require petition, deference litigants entitled, Haines Kerner, 404 519, 92 594, 652 (1972), can asserting allegedly Tucker, 443, 589, 592 affirm Appeals' finding jurisdiction. 11 limited narrow issue "custody" court. express view extent itself enhance. 2254 Rule 9(a). judgment 12 Affirmed. * filing. did address contention, pressed Accordingly, consider here.

Category: 0