In Re Falconi

California Court of Appeal Sep 23, 1937 No. Crim. 1578Published

Before: Thompson

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that a prisoner is not entitled to credit against his sentence for time spent as a fugitive after the revocation of his parole, and that the prison board has the authority to impose reporting conditions as part of prison rules.

Issues

Whether a prisoner is entitled to credit for time spent at large after the revocation of his parole.
Whether the prison board has the authority to impose reporting conditions as part of prison rules and regulations.

Disposition. Writ denied.

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The petitioner has not fully served the term for which he was committed to state prison, and is therefore not entitled to be discharged from custody.”

“He is not entitled to credit upon the term of his sentence for that period of time from January 14, 1928, to September 4, 1930, during which he unlawfully remained away from Folsom state prison after the revocation of his parole.”

“The condition imposed by the prison board upon the parole of the petitioner requiring him to report periodically to the parole officer was a valid exercise of authority.”

THOMPSON, J.

Upon

habeas corpus

the petitioner seeks to be discharged from custody on the theory that his term of imprisonment has been fully served. Upon conviction of the crime of robbery the petitioner was committed June 25, 1917, to state prison at San Quentin, and later transferred to Folsom, for a term of twenty years. September 28, 1926, he was released on parole, subject to certain specified terms and conditions, among which was the requirement that he report periodically. For failure to comply with the conditions fixed by the prison board, his parole was revoked January 14, 1928. The petitioner failed to present himself for imprisonment at the state prison to complete his sentence after the termination of his parole, but continued to remain at large until September 14, 1930, when he was apprehended and again imprisoned. The prisoner remained at large two years and eight months after his parole was revoked before he was returned to state prison.

It is contended the petitioner is entitled to be discharged from custody because more than twenty years have elapsed since his commitment June 25, 1917, and that the prison board was without legal authority to suspend his parole or revoke his credits for violation of parole conditions occurring outside of the state prison for the reason that such conditions were not a part of the “rules and regulations

of the prison”.

The petitioner has not fully served the term for which he was committed to state prison, and is therefore not entitled to be discharged from custody. In computing the term of imprisonment which has been served, the petitioner is entitled to credit for the time between September 28, 1926, and January 14, 1928, during which he was lawfully at liberty on

[606]

parole.

(In re Forbes,

108 Cal. App. 683 [292 Pac. 142].) After his parole was revoked on January 14, 1928, it was his duty to immediately present himself to the prison authorities at Folsom to complete his sentence of imprisonment in that institution. He is not entitled to credit upon the term of his sentence for that period of time from January 14, 1928, to September 4, 1930, during which he unlawfully remained away from Folsom state prison after the revocation of his parole. During the last-mentioned period of time the petitioner is deemed to have been a fugitive from justice. In

In Re Falconi

AI Brief

THOMPSON, J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief