Upload a complaint or brief to quickly find on-point case law.
CARA A.I. uses the facts and legal issues in your document to find relevant authorities.
Drag a complaint or brief hereUpload a complaint or briefPDF documentWORD documentTXT documentOr, choose a document to uploadChoose DocumentSecure
Find on-point cases faster with CARA A.I.
§
Depth of Treatment
Newest to Oldest
Oldest to Newest
Cite Count
MILLS v. BETO

5 Citing cases

  1. Holtzinger v. Estelle

    488 F.2d 517 (5th Cir. 1974)   Cited 11 times
    In Holtzinger the plaintiff sought to compel the Texas authorities to grant good-time credit for time he served in prison in California, time spent on parole and good-time acquired in California. Because Texas had never granted Holtzinger good-time credit, his interest in it, unlike Keenan's interest in his IGT status, had not risen to the level of a liberty interest protected by the Fourteenth Amendment.

    Appellant is not entitled to "good time" credit on his Texas sentence for the period incarcerated in California. Mills v. Beto, 5th Cir. 1973, 477 F.2d 124. The judgment below is affirmed.

  2. Piper v. Estelle

    485 F.2d 245 (5th Cir. 1973)   Cited 72 times
    Holding that State was permitted to file parole revocation detainer against inmate while inmate was serving a federal sentence for conviction obtained after the state parole

    Any claim that such conduct constituted a lack of interest of the dimensions present in Shields is ridiculous. See Mills v. Beto, 477 F.2d 124 [5th Cir. 1973]; Dorrough v. Texas, 440 F.2d 1063 (5th Cir. 1971); and Bilton v. Beto, 403 F.2d 664 (5th Cir. 1968). Vernon's Ann.Tex. Code Crim.Pro. art. 42.01 et seq. (1966).

  3. MILLS v. BETO

    477 F.2d 596 (5th Cir. 1973)

    May 10, 1973. E.D.Tex., 477 F.2d 124. DENIAL OF REHEARING EN BANC

  4. Hearn v. State

    642 P.2d 757 (Utah 1982)   Cited 2 times

    Then, 18 years after the prisoner's unconditional release from the second confinement in one case and 2 years in the other, the sending state sought to have the prisoner serve out the full period remaining on his original sentence. Noting that this procedure could interrupt a prisoner's opportunity to re-establish himself in society and that in the circumstances of these cases (where no detainer had been placed by the sending state) the prisoner's release to the receiving state amounted to a waiver of jurisdiction, these courts ordered the prisoner released from renewed confinement under the first sentence. As subsequent cases have noted, these precedents are obviously distinguishable from cases (like this appellant's) where a prisoner is being called upon to serve consecutive sentences in the different jurisdictions, with detainers placed to assure continuous incarceration. Piper v. Estelle, 485 F.2d 245 (5th Cir. 1973); Mills v. Beto, 477 F.2d 124 (5th Cir. 1973), cert. denied, 414 U.S. 1005, 94 S.Ct. 362, 38 L.Ed.2d 241 (1973). Also distinguishable are cases like Thompson v. Bannan, 298 F.2d 611 (6th Cir. 1962), and others cited therein, which refer to an implied pardon, a commutation of sentence, or a waiver of jurisdiction when a prisoner serving a sentence in one state is surrendered to another state.

  5. Alexander v. Wilson

    540 P.2d 331 (Colo. 1975)   Cited 11 times

    The legislature has not seen fit to extend the privilege of good conduct credit to prisoners for time spent in confinement outside of this state immediately prior to imprisonment in this state. See Mills v. Beto, 477 F.2d 124 (5th Cir. 1973); cf. McGinnis, Commissioner v. Royster, 410 U.S. 263, 93 S.Ct. 1055, 35 L.Ed.2d 282 (1972). It is the convict's behavior in the penitentiary of this state, not that of some other jurisdiction, which is being rewarded.