Opinion
No. CIV-18-330-C
09-24-2018
CHAS ANTHONY MORRISON, Petitioner, v. B. GREILICK, Warden, Respondent.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Federal prisoner Chas Anthony Morrison has filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, challenging the execution of his sentence. (ECF No. 1). Mr. Greilick has filed his Response to the habeas petition. (ECF No. 14). For the reasons set forth below, it is recommended that the Petition be DENIED.
I. BACKGROUND
On August 10, 2015, Petitioner was arrested in Allen, Texas on five charges related to the federal offense on which he is currently incarcerated and three charges unrelated to his federal offense. (ECF No. 14:2-3; 14-1:1-2, 8-12, 14-17). Mr. Morrison was detained in the Allen City Jail until August 12, 2015, when he was transferred to the Collin County Detention Facility. (ECF No. 14-1:2, 8-12, 14).
On March 11, 2016, a United States Magistrate Judge for the Eastern District of Texas issued an Order for Writ of Habeas Corpus ad prosequendum to appear in federal court. (ECF No. 14-1:19). On March 14, 2016, Mr. Morrison was temporarily removed from state custody pursuant to the writ. (ECF No. 14-1:2, 21). On July 18, 2017, Petitioner was sentenced to 151 months incarceration by the Eastern District of Texas in Case No. 4:16-CR-16-7 on a charge of conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute 500 grams or more of methamphetamine. (ECF No. 14-1:2-3, 21, 24-31). On July 19, 2017, federal authorities returned Mr. Morrison to state custody by way of the Collin County Detention Facility. (ECF No. 14-1:3, 21).
On July 19, 2017, Petitioner was convicted on two state charges by the District Court of Collin County, Texas, in Case Nos. 199-82956 and 199-82955-2014 and ordered to serve 5 years and 1 year incarceration, respectively, to be served concurrently. (ECF Nos. 14-1:3, 33-35, 40-44). At the time of sentencing, the state court awarded Mr. Morrison 783 days of jail time credit. (ECF No. 14-1:3, 41, 44). The period of credit was calculated as follows: from November 28, 2014 through December 7, 2014 at 10 days; from December 8, 2014 through February 5, 2015 at 65 days; and from August 12, 2015 thru July 19, 2017 at 708 days. (ECF No. 14-1:48).
On November 29, 2017, Petitioner was paroled on his state sentence and received into custody by the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) to begin serving his federal sentence. (ECF No. 14-1:3, 22, 50-53, 58). The BOP awarded Mr. Morrison two days of credit on his federal sentence for August 10-11, 2015—days which Petitioner was in custody on charges related to his federal offense, but that had not been previously credited toward his state sentence. (ECF No. 14-1:3-4, 58).
On April 12, 2018, Petitioner filed the instant habeas petition pursuant 28 U.S.C. § 2241, challenging the execution of his sentence and arguing that he is due credit on his federal sentence for time served in jail prior to the commencement of his federal sentence. (ECF No. 1). Specifically, Petitioner raises two grounds for relief. In Ground One, Mr. Morrison states:
Arrested on August 10, 2015 on related drug charges that the state dropped and the Feds picked up on 2/11/16. Since the feds picked those charges up I should receive that back time.(ECF No. 1:6).
In Ground Two, Mr. Morrison states:
Federal Government put a writ out for me to become a federal inmate in federal custody on 3/16/16. From 3/16/16 to 7/18/17 I should receive that as back time.(ECF No. 1:7). As relief, Mr. Morrison requests "back time from 8/10/15 on related charges to 7/18/17 when I got federaly [sic] sentenced." (ECF No. 1:8).
Defendant has filed a Response to the Petition, arguing: (1) Mr. Morrison failed to exhaust his administrative remedies prior to filing the federal lawsuit and (2) the Petition should be denied on the merits because Mr. Morrison has already received credit for the time period at issue and is statutorily prohibited from receiving "double credit." (ECF No. 14:5-9). The Court need not address the exhaustion argument, as denial on the merits is appropriate.
II. DENIAL OF THE HABEAS PETITION
Computation of a federal sentence requires consideration of two separate issues: (1) the commencement date of the federal sentence, and (2) the extent to which a defendant can receive credit for time spent in custody prior to commencement of his sentence. Binford v. U.S., 436 F.3d 1252, 1254 (10th Cir. 2006). A federal sentence commences when a prisoner is received into federal custody for that purpose. Id. at 1255; see also 18 U.S.C. § 3585(a). Because Mr. Morrison entered federal custody to serve his federal sentence on November 29, 2017, his federal sentence commenced on that date. The issue is the credit, if any, to which Mr. Morrison is entitled for custody prior to that date.
Federal law mandates that a prisoner may not receive credit toward a federal sentence "for any time . . . spent in official detention . . . credited against another sentence." 18 U.S.C. § 3585(b). Mr. Morrison seeks credit on his federal sentence from August 10, 2015 through July 18, 2017. (ECF No. 1:8). Respondent has presented evidence which shows: (1) the BOP had awarded credit on Petitioner's federal sentence from August 10-11, 2015 and (2) state officials had awarded Mr. Morrison credit on the state sentence from August 12, 2015 through July 19, 2017. (ECF No. 14-1:3-4, 41, 44, 48, 58). Because the period in question has already been credited toward Petitioner's state and federal sentence, 18 U.S.C. § 3585(b) prohibits the award of additional credit. See Esquivel v. Warden, F.C.I., El Reno, 462 F. App'x 825, 826-27 (10th Cir. 2012). Accordingly, the Court should deny the habeas petition.
III. RECOMMENDATION AND NOTICE OF RIGHT TO OBJECT
It is recommended that the Court deny Mr. Morrison's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (ECF No. 1).
The parties are advised of their right to file an objection to this Report and Recommendation with the Clerk of this Court by October 11, 2018, in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636 and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72. The parties are further advised that failure to make timely objection to this Report and Recommendation waives the right to appellate review of both factual and legal issues contained herein. Casanova v. Ulibarri, 595 F.3d 1120, 1123 (10th Cir. 2010).
IV. STATUS OF REFERRAL
This Report and Recommendation terminates the referral by the District Judge in this matter.
ENTERED on September 24, 2018.
/s/_________
SHON T. ERWIN
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
See Wallette v. Wilner, 321 F. App'x 735, 738-39 (10th Cir. 2009) (noting that it is permissible to bypass the issue of exhaustion and address the merit of inmate's § 2241 petition) (citing United States v. Eccleston, 521 F.3d 1249, 1253 (10th Cir. 2008) (noting that a court may deny a habeas application on the merits without addressing exhaustion)).