Narrative Opinion Summary
In this case, the petitioner sought relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 to serve his federal sentence for a supervised release violation prior to completing his Maryland state sentence. The petitioner had been sentenced to 12 months for unlawful possession of a firearm, running concurrently with any other sentences, and subsequently to 30 years for voluntary manslaughter in Maryland. After violating supervised release, he received an additional 18-month sentence to run consecutively. The petitioner argued that Maryland should have allowed him to serve the federal sentence first and challenged the jurisdictional order of his sentences. The court denied his habeas corpus petition, emphasizing that the order of sentence execution is determined by the executive branches of the respective sovereigns, not the judiciary. The court also noted that the petition was not appropriately filed under § 2254, and his jurisdictional claim was time-barred. Ultimately, the court found no legal merit in the petitioner's claims, upholding the sentencing decisions and denying the requested relief.
Legal Issues Addressed
Concurrent vs. Consecutive Sentencingsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court upheld the decision to impose McKeever's 18-month sentence consecutively to his Maryland state sentence, despite his request for concurrency.
Reasoning: After violating his supervised release, a revocation hearing in 2008 resulted in an 18-month consecutive sentence for the violation, despite his request for it to run concurrently with the Maryland sentence.
Habeas Corpus ad Prosequendum and State Jurisdictionsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court clarified that McKeever remained under state jurisdiction despite being transferred for federal proceedings under a writ of habeas corpus ad prosequendum.
Reasoning: Mr. McKeever mistakenly believes he was released from state jurisdiction to serve his federal sentence, but case law clarifies that a prisoner transferred under a writ of habeas corpus ad prosequendum remains under state jurisdiction.
Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254subscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court reviewed McKeever's petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 and concluded that it was not the appropriate vehicle for his claims regarding sentence execution order.
Reasoning: Defendant's petition, filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 for a writ of habeas corpus, asserts that Maryland's refusal to allow him to complete his federal sentence before returning him to serve his state sentence is improper.
Jurisdiction and Sentence Execution Ordersubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court found that jurisdiction over the execution order of sentences between state and federal authorities lies with the executive branches, not the judiciary.
Reasoning: The priority of custody and sentence service is a matter of comity, determined by the executive branches of the respective sovereigns, not the judiciary.
Timeliness of Habeas Corpus Petitionssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: McKeever's claim regarding loss of jurisdiction in his supervised release sentencing was deemed time-barred, as it was filed over a decade after his sentence became final.
Reasoning: The Government argues this claim is ineligible under Section 2254, which only applies to state prisoners, and is time-barred as it was filed over a decade after his sentence became final.