From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Moore and Ancarrow v. Peyton

Supreme Court of Virginia
Sep 4, 1970
176 S.E.2d 427 (Va. 1970)

Summary

In Moore and Ancarrow v. Peyton, 211 Va. 119, 176 S.E.2d 427 (1970) we held that the courts of Virginia have no jurisdiction to determine the validity of a sentence fully served before a proceeding for a writ of habeas corpus is instituted. At the time petitioner initiated this proceeding he had fully served three of the four convictions which he attacked.

Summary of this case from Morris v. Penitentiary Superintendent

Opinion

42372 Record Nos. 7429, 7430 and 7431.

September 4, 1970

Present, All the Justices.

Original Petitions for Writs of Habeas Corpus.

Writs denied.

Habeas Corpus — Sentence Fully Served.

Court has no jurisdiction to determine validity of a sentence fully served before the proceeding for a writ of habeas corpus is instituted.

G. Andrew Rea, Jr. (Wallerstein, Goode, Dobbins Shuford, on brief), for petitioners in Record Nos. 7429, 7430 and 7431.

W. Luke Witt, Assistant Attorney General (Andrew P. Miller, Attorney General, on brief), for respondents in Record Nos. 7429, 7430 and 7431.


The petitioners seek to determine the validity of sentences which they had fully served prior to the institution of these proceedings.

In Smyth v. Midgett, 199 Va. 727, 730, 101 S.E.2d 575, 578 (1958), we held: "A court does not have jurisdiction to determine the validity of a sentence under which the prisoner is not being detained. It follows that where a prisoner is being detained under a valid sentence he is not entitled to credit for time served on a void sentence fully served before the proceeding for writ of habeas corpus is instituted. . . ."

Code Sec. 8-596 was amended in 1968 to extend the jurisdiction of our courts in habeas corpus proceedings to permit a sentence to be challenged ". . . although the sentence imposed for such conviction . . . is to be served subsequently to the sentence currently being served by the petitioner." (Emphasis supplied)

While this amendment extends jurisdiction to permit a petitioner to challenge the validity of a sentence to be served subsequently, it does not extend jurisdiction to the courts of Virginia to permit a determination of the validity of a sentence fully served before the proceeding for a writ of habeas corpus is instituted.

Peyton v. Christian, 208 Va. 105, 155 S.E.2d 335 (1967), relied upon by the petitioners, is not applicable here as it presented an entirely different factual situation from the cases now before us. In Christian there had been a final judicial determination in another earlier proceeding that a sentence imposed on November 10, 1944, was void. The only question to be decided by the court was the date petitioner commenced to serve a valid sentence imposed on March 25, 1945. We determined this to be from March 25, 1945, the date of the final judgment, as is provided by Code Sec. 53-207.

Writs denied.


Summaries of

Moore and Ancarrow v. Peyton

Supreme Court of Virginia
Sep 4, 1970
176 S.E.2d 427 (Va. 1970)

In Moore and Ancarrow v. Peyton, 211 Va. 119, 176 S.E.2d 427 (1970) we held that the courts of Virginia have no jurisdiction to determine the validity of a sentence fully served before a proceeding for a writ of habeas corpus is instituted. At the time petitioner initiated this proceeding he had fully served three of the four convictions which he attacked.

Summary of this case from Morris v. Penitentiary Superintendent
Case details for

Moore and Ancarrow v. Peyton

Case Details

Full title:ALBERT STANLEY MOORE v. C. C. PEYTON, SUPERINTENDENT OF THE VIRGINIA STATE…

Court:Supreme Court of Virginia

Date published: Sep 4, 1970

Citations

176 S.E.2d 427 (Va. 1970)
176 S.E.2d 427

Citing Cases

E.C. v. Virginia Dep't of Juvenile Justice

No citation to legal authority supporting this conclusion was provided. The Court did not address the…

Rivers v. Martin

Therefore, it is obvious that the "immediate release" rule of the earlier Virginia decisions is no longer…