Document: 399 U.S. 224 90 S.Ct. 1963 26 L.Ed.2d 578 Louis S. NELSON, Warden, Petitioner,v.John Edward GEORGE. No. 595. Argued March 31, 1970. Decided June 29, Louise H. Renne, San Francisco, Cal., for petitioner. George A. Cumming, Jr., respondent. Mr. Chief Justice BURGER delivered the opinion of Court. 1 We granted writ in this case to consider whether respondent, presently confined California under a state conviction, may utilize federal courts test validity North Carolina sentence before beginning serve that and while detainer filed by Carolina. Respondent claims yet be served is 'consecutive' Peyton v. Rowe, 391 54, 88 1549, 20 426 (1968). However, since his petition challenges present effect being given authorities, particularly with respect granting him parole, we have concluded as claim respondent failed exhaust remedies accordingly do not reach question which was granted. 2 The record discloses on April 27, 1964, John convicted plea guilty court first-degree robbery. He began serving five years life at Quentin.1 Following detainers were States Kansas, Nevada, Carolina, 4, 10, 11, respectively. 3 Exercising right Article III(a) interstate 'Agreement Detainers,'2 requested temporary release stand trial underlying robbery charge pending Accordingly, July 20, 1966, he released authorities transported there trial. held, February 8, 1967, sentenced imprisonment 12 15 years. conviction thereafter affirmed, State George, 271 N.C. 438, 156 S.E.2d 845 (1967). 4 returned Quentin complete service sentence. On 14, clerk Gaston County Superior Court addressed letter Records Officer advising 'wanted termination return jurisdiction imposed County, Carolina.' Warden acknowledged detainer, indicating it 'noted our records.' 5 then brought habeas corpus United District Northern sought attack incarcerated, but had been filed. denied application order dated 1, 1968, ground McNally Hill, 293 131, 55 24, 79 S.Ed. 238 (1934), foreclosed relief still custody prior judgment. 6 rehearing argued even though actually time jail thus technically sentence, operated form constructive custody. In support contention drew upon language Arketa Wilson, 373 F.2d 582 (C.A.9th Cir. 1967), strict rule Hill somewhat eroded Court's subsequent decisions Ex parte Hull, 312 546, 61 640, 85 L.Ed. 1034 (1941), Jones Cunningham, 371 236, 86 373, 9 285 (1963), 'it appears are situations can used free petitioner from certain type custody, rather than all custody.' supra, 584. warrant 'a custody' affected custodial classification probability parole sentence.3 appealed Appeals Ninth Circuit. 7 Our decision Rowe intervened. overruled held prisoner consecutive sentences forum 'in each purposes collateral 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3),4 permitting action future an earlier State, State's prison. Unlike now us, such single-state situation challenge continuing vitality Ahrens Clark, 335 188, 68 1443, 92 1898 (1948), does arise. See Word 406 352 (C.A.4th 1969).5 8 As noted, having named amended Federal refused, rehearing. alleged 'form because detainer. Specifically, mere presence adversly securing degree security detained authorities. denies existence has any consequences affecting potential or status. Since Full Faith Credit Clause require sister enforce foreign penal judgment, Huntington Attrill, 146 657, 13 224, 36 1123 (1892); cf. Milwaukee M. E. White Co., 296 268, 279, 56 229, 235, 80 220 (1935), what effect, if any, will give terms George's 'custody.'6 Because raised precisely 'custody,' matter presented courts, conclude exhausted remedies. Royall, 117 241, 734, 29 868 (1886). 10 insists very well continue adverse impact California's consideration parole. Therefore, should retain respondent's further whatever relief, available appropriate establishes Carolina's interferes might, absence California. affirm judgment extent finds elects press those after exhausts courts. 11 Affirmed. BLACKMUN took no part case. HARLAN, whom MARSHALL joins, concurring. 14 I join following observations. First, understand suggest failure giving constitutionally impermissible rendered improper thereto. Second, agreeing reasons reaching propriety Appeals' resolution would dismiss improvidently Third, congressional envisages, think inappropriate leave undisturbed conflicts exist between other circuits, see 1969); ex rel. Van Scoten Pennsylvania, 404 767 (C.A.3d 1968), respecting proper treatment involved conviction. DOUGLAS, dissenting. 16 This seeking constitutionality must when finishes term. infirmities alleges relate speedy knowing use perjured testimony. against California; uses avoid basic issue petition. stated, 'It Supreme here.' only reference made dismissed 426, decided; argument distinguish 238, overruled, arguing different disadvantage Both pro se products. Thus false got into 17 holds shown law affect status therefore 2254 (1964 ed., Supp. V). 18 V)1 concerned remove making unnecessary intervention. Plainly, supply 19 adverts wholly character—they concern procedures correcting They irrelevant why one second scheduled service. ruled prisoners wait until first could challenged, grave injustices might done: 'By time, dimmed memories death witnesses bound render difficult impossible secure crucial testimony disputed issues fact. * To name few examples (of prejudice resulting kind delay imposes), factual determinations often dispositive coerced confession *; lack competency denial fair trial, Postponement adjudication harm both lessens final disposition substantial justice.' 62, 1553. 21 If escape rigors exhaustion course proper. But gravamen 'the presented' within meaning 22 Appeals, Cir., 410 1179, did decide California, pass merits petition, viz., invalidity It emphasized practical difficulties whichever chosen. Id., 1182. Trying put burden prosecutors witnesses. entail problems expense insofar prisoner's appearance needed. fact 'jurisdiction,' ruled, mean transfer cause Carolina.2 23 left open informed discretion how where heard reserve another day transferred hearing. Under indeterminate Adult Authority. Cal.Pen.Code, 213. 1389 (Supp.1968). App. 26. '§ 2241. Power grant writ. '(a) Writs Court, justice thereof, district circuit judge their respective jurisdiction. shall entered records wherein restraint complained had. '(c) extend unless— '(3) violation Constitution laws treaties States; *' Judge Haynsworth, expressing views majority Fourth Circuit sitting en banc, Clark venue decision, physical invariable requirement rigid adherence prison without effective remedy. legislative history 1966 amendments 2241(d) V) suggests Congress intended endorse preserve territorial altered amendments. H.R.Resp.No.1894, 89th Cong., 2d Sess., 1—2 (1966). also S.Rep.No.1502, Sess. Those changes Congress, course, Rowe; necessarily multistate problem confronted mind. Whether, light changed circumstances about rigor holding reconsidered note dilemma they bring sentencing irrespective incarcerated. 2255. anomalous statutory scheme contemplate affording obvious, logical, solution amendment 2241 remedy short-coming become apparent Rowe. Sound judicial administration calls amendment. here scope ultimate duty, Art. IV, 2, cl. Constitution, extradite persons wanted execution State. that, obligation matures, way. '(b) An behalf person pursuant unless applicant either corrective process rendering ineffective protect rights prisoner. deemed section, raise, procedure, presented.' (Italics added.) 1404(a); 352. H.R.Rep.No.1894, 1—2, stated: 'Section title 28, Code, vests entertain applications (Ahrens 1898). Further, '* brought,' provisions section 1404(a) Code (Hoffman Blaski, 363 335, 1084, 1254).' These reports 2241, permits whose incarcerated outside so long sits. solves posed incarceration same Section construed Ahrens, unaffected districts States.

Category: 0