Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Grange v. Butler, 1st Cir. (1994)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    8 views3 pages
    The US Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's dismissal of Emanuel Grange's habeas corpus petition. The Court found Grange's claim that his sentence was improperly "enhanced" upon his return to Massachusetts to be without merit. His sentence was not based on a violation for escape, as he was never convicted of that crime. Instead, the time Grange was absent from Massachusetts was simply added to the time he had already served. As a result, Grange's other claims on appeal regarding reconsideration of the ex post facto claim and consent to waive the claim were also deemed meritless.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 1994-01-26 Precedential Status: Precedential Docket: 93-1709

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    The US Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's dismissal of Emanuel Grange's habeas corpus petition. The Court found Grange's claim that his sentence was improperly "enhanced" upon his return to Massachusetts to be without merit. His sentence was not based on a violation for escape, as he was never convicted of that crime. Instead, the time Grange was absent from Massachusetts was simply added to the time he had already served. As a result, Grange's other claims on appeal regarding reconsideration of the ex post facto claim and consent to waive the claim were also deemed meritless.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    8 views3 pages

    Grange v. Butler, 1st Cir. (1994)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The US Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's dismissal of Emanuel Grange's habeas corpus petition. The Court found Grange's claim that his sentence was improperly "enhanced" upon his return to Massachusetts to be without merit. His sentence was not based on a violation for escape, as he was never convicted of that crime. Instead, the time Grange was absent from Massachusetts was simply added to the time he had already served. As a result, Grange's other claims on appeal regarding reconsideration of the ex post facto claim and consent to waive the claim were also deemed meritless.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 3

    USCA1 Opinion

    January 26, 1994


    [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
    ____________________
    No. 93-1709
    No. 93-1868

    EMANUEL R. GRANGE, A/K/A TEDDY MURPHY,


    Petitioner,
    v.
    NORMAN J. BUTLER,
    Respondent.
    ____________________
    APPEALS FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
    FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
    [Hon. Rya W. Zobel, U.S. District Judge]
    ___________________
    ____________________
    Before
    Breyer, Chief Judge,
    ___________
    Torruella and Selya, Circuit Judges.
    ______________
    ____________________
    Emanuel R. Grange, a/k/a Teddy Murphy on brief pro se.
    _____________________________________
    Scott Harshbarger, Attorney General, and LaDonna J.

    Hatt

    __________________
    _________________
    Assistant Attorney General, on brief for appellee.
    ____________________
    ____________________

    Per Curiam.
    __________
    from

    the dismissal

    corpus

    filed

    Appellant
    of his

    under

    28

    reviewing the parties'


    judgment
    stated

    petition

    U.S.C.

    for a
    2254.

    Grange appeals
    writ of

    habeas

    After carefully

    briefs and the record,

    of the district
    in the Report

    Emanuel R.

    we affirm the

    court for essentially

    and Recommendation of

    the reasons

    the magistrate-

    judge dated April 13, 1992.


    Appellant's claim that his sentence was
    upon

    his

    prohibition
    it is not

    return

    to

    Massachusetts

    in

    "enhanced"

    violation

    against ex post facto laws is meritless.


    __ ____ _____
    cognizable under

    2254.

    of

    the

    First,

    That is, petitioner

    is

    not "in custody" pursuant to a sentence concerning the charge


    of escape, having never been convicted of this crime.
    U.S.C.
    (per

    See 28
    ___

    2254(a); Maleng v. Cook, 490 U.S. 488, 490-91 (1989)


    ______
    ____
    curiam).

    "enhanced"
    Instead,

    Second,

    based

    on

    petitioner's
    violation of

    upon petitioner's return

    the time he had been

    sentence
    M.G.L.

    was

    c.268,

    not
    16.

    in 1985 to Massachusetts,

    absent from the Commonwealth was simply

    added to the time he already had served.


    As a result, petitioner's other claims on appeal -that

    the district

    court abused

    its

    discretion in

    denying

    petitioner's request for reconsideration of the ex post facto


    __ ____ _____
    claim and that

    petitioner never consented or

    authorized his

    attorney to waive this claim -- also are meritless.


    Affirmed.
    ________

    -2-

    You might also like