Appendix — Smith v. Hooey

; j ; y “7 2

om ne 2 ety $e: <i me, ; ie 4 xe 3 we

CS RGB 167 5 Sage BLE be itt Fae age

we 3%, ty aes

t

t°.™*

Respondents are unable to ascertain from the

served on

II:

On the 16th day of March, A. D: 1960 the Grand Jury

of Harris County, T

petitioner “Rr

were p

ar ‘ie 5 @ be

é a

S . ys

>.

is‘ believed to

date

and cehed for notice

ee Pnee f : - :

; ; ee . ;

+ °

eT ig rss pe? Pi i Ia ES “A .

aif ying Cea. “De 4 hee “re 4 4

* }

Sitti’ “a Reo. 5. 7 hee

: ei _ 7 , i

" pos : a

g7 é -

~ Agr 5 al a, 3 e

st firs ‘ é

+ 4 ' s

? v2 me 3 4 ?

- a. s

A a Pa

¥ E _ Be

of ae

a

pant e

of any date petitioner ;

these respon-

date a ich p :

, willing, able and vious

| within two weeks of any date

Waa

yee

« 4 BD

3

‘il

nel

RA ae Qe ae ‘ ; ; C

oe hs Sk. SET AA 9 ,

= 4" bd we a \ we oy :

RS ae > : < 3 .

aoe og wens PY ~ N . : b °

ries 4 is S " . . ‘ ay ae ~' ,

\ ea SYS cual’ OR PRS NG oe “ See S ’ 3

‘ ait. ds

py Li? hake ye

Telephone: CA

pos

4 ;

, .

. adh

e214 ¥4

et Po

“~ ees ;

-

>’

s ft

+ n

’

’

‘ -

-

‘

. -

.

of

.

4 :

; Py j

. . ®. <

, - Pa

-

¢

,

¥

1-4

+

¢ .

4 a

i *

4 f fe

~

°

]

’

’

, .

i

,

,

Gi 78

mn

s -

4

s .

. . -

. » ad o

e. ‘

: - ‘

‘ ‘ .

- ? 7 .

° . ‘

. . .

. « N

. ° . -

> ‘ -

omugut - ‘ .

°

° -? eee

. . . . j ae ; a

7 .

° ‘ . ‘

. : ° .

. 5 Y

. $ .

: : : .

. . . .

4 e

° 3 e .

. ‘ e z = :

- a Je

¢ “Ne oe.

© 2 us

: . . ane z

o a : : . >

. .. bf

, > ry : ao ar

: ‘ .

* eS. ‘ . ks

" . . :

2 ‘ A : :

‘

K «

. a . ¢ . : .

. 2 . eo

- ee ° :

“

‘ ce : : P 2 :

=>

‘Caption — ee : za | aa , ee |

* Oplatans Beli sie

g Jurisdiction anaes nea ial ices eta - |

;, Constitutional. Provisions and Statutes Involved

Questions Presented a

"Statement of the Case-_-_-----4.----2--------

“Summary of Argument... iasigeiemiiediiaalth

3 Argument . > ee Posie We 7 NOM Ere

I. Petitioner Should Pay H His Own Way 3

“3 ile ib Dts aA |

TL. If “Indigent” Petitioner Must t Notify sie

Ae | ign Rtowinotnenone aetna rin See

III. State Has No “Option” When To Try |

_ Petitioner grange eine ntca nena senna nn }

IV. State Did Not Place “Detainer” Against '

_ * Petitioner --------------------------- ,

-V. Record Herein Is Insufficient: _-___-——__

"Vi. Facts Should Be Developed In Trial

Ws Court 7 si cies ini wie eependsi —

ON i riichccercineericon pvt ss.

I ia i

Certificate of Servien—— gana

EET E aa

’ be

Fede

op 5 aa

TABLE, oF AUTHORITIES

oh -

Coan of Tat ten

_ Article VF 22-22 _ =

"Supreme Court Cases 6

~ Sohngoa v. Massachusetts, 390 U. 8. — Z

20 L. Hd. 2d 69) 88 8. Ct, 1155.__--_

Pollard v. United States, 352 U. 8. 354, 360,

1 L, Ed. 398, 399; TT 8. Ct. 481, 486___-.____

-—"4 _ United States v. Ewell, 383 U: 8. 116, 122;

© WS Ls Ha. 2 627, 682; 86 8. Ct, 773, 719...

‘w. 1. &. Courts of Appeals Cases’ ee srerae

Dansiger v. United States, 161 F. 24 299

(th Cir. 1949) Cert. Den. 382 U. 8. 7693:

68 8. Ot. 813,92 L. Ed. 24 354.00 :

Fouts v. United States, 253 F. 2.215

ae Ss) er

Ex parte Lawoon, 98 Ter. Or. R944;

266 SW 1101.2. adap

Webb v. State; 161 Tex. Cr. R. 449;

_ =) 918 SW 2d 158, 159.____-. sss erie

- {

| Walid Ses Sette 7 paeeaaeeo iss

—- +

aa Wi 009 tee

- 18 U8; 4006 ic wine sno hie

ke

I. ‘

; ; en § aise eae

: Og ae ot

ogi, tae ae ;

ie . en

: J Nie

s

; ‘Article 302 3 Ae Seo

eof Criminal Procediire of Tezas of 1965

-Asticle 28.06 athe Stak Sas 1,15 -

"Texas Rules of Civil, Procedure eS hee

Rule 145

! Sr Ge

.

a

.

>.

4

! ad

| ? ov

! ~

.

‘ t i

P s

j

* ‘

; ~ : ;

g : j

“= }

4 &

s -

* +

- Tele

- *

-

| “

ad . ¢?

6 .

oy :

id ‘

‘ s

® 5 ofthe

° r o : ‘

% :

>

” 4

*%,

; ee

‘ : ‘

9 % “°

3

¥ M -

. A

.

ieee eo oe APPENDIX, B :

co | Memerandtim for the United States

baie Eavcoel thet dices bee

et the: sad States in this case, in-which petitioner has

al anus directed to respondent, Judge

4 | “Conrt of Harris County, Texas,

Scie sa indictment returned. in that

urt against ‘ F Oh March 16, 1960. ‘Since April © -

1960, ‘petition ey iA Neienal pentnet ming pall e

as the United. States. at .Leavenworth eaveR-

Bina ap yo hat pat

: in response pe that

first requested a speedy trial.on March 17, |

mean Sone aebinner tac-oalite) Gat ic mae inset

afforded « trial within.two weeks of any date..petitioner |

‘might specify at-which he could'be present..The prosecutor __.

~~ served:a copy.of his response to the instant-petition upon

the Attorney General “with the thought that he. may care

to specify a “se on which mane may be. eee for :

© encourag ot Poherdt Sth ie br fosbentions fn Ea

PO | risoners. The normal pro- \. | -

‘Samah postures o-ttened speek. :

__writ ad prosegwendem from the state court. Almost in-:

“variably, jose has: complied: with ‘such writs ©

"ang extended its sdoperatio’ to: the state authorities. The

} rit to mitigata the

¢oetito the stats, the Buren of Prisons ha secon al

oe ac % ans ae oe t . ra: ;

Da acta ad

in =

Pads

: \ Whapever any federal y ‘prisoner. lias ‘ian 2 initod ins

* formed against; or convicted of a felony page i

Sof reéord of dny State or the District of ‘Columbia, ;

the Attotney General shall, if ‘he finds it in the-publie .

.jnterest to do so, upon the. <— of ‘the Governor or.

the executive authority thereo and@apon the presen-. -

) tation ‘of a certified. copy of = indictment, informa-_

- tion or judgment of conviction, cause. such @ person,

prior to his releasé, to transferred to a penal or a

correctional institution within such State or District. : os |

| * the Bureau of Prisons does -not, homens: Ocnsider

it is if function to determine the date of trial .in.a state -

_ court. Occasionally, at the request. of the prisoner or upon

. his inquiry, the Bureau of Prisons has itself communicated -

with 2 local prosecutor, urging the disposition of pending .

charges and advising that the United States will produce ©

_ the prisoner pursugnt to a writ ad prosequendum. In this

_ ease, we are advised by the Bypreau of Prisons that,.except

_. for a detainer filed by the sheriff of Harris County, their ©

‘files reflect no correspondence from the District Attorney °

: of Harris County-with respect to petitioner. Nor did peti-

tioner’ request any assistance from the United States

Bureau, of Prisons. $5.

‘ «In short, the Bureau. of Prisons would seabilien 7 have

made the prisoner available if a writ-ef hgbeas_corpus ad.

prosequendum had been issued by the state court. It does -

appear, however, that the State at any point sought to

' _. initiate that:procedare in this case, r

~ ‘Respectfully submitted, |

. & 4

: - Eewre N. Guise,

_ Solicitor General, -