Hunter v. Martin

Background

A man serving a state prison term for automobile theft was returned to state custody after receiving a federal sentence for forging Treasury checks. The federal judgment said the ten-year sentence should "begin to run at the expiration of the sentence now being served in the Missouri State Penitentiary." The state paroled him before that term ended and delivered him to federal authorities, and he argued that parole meant the federal term had not begun and he should be free during the parole period.

Reasoning

The Court focused on whether the deferral language was meant to let a person go free during parole. The Justices said the clause was meant to avoid conflict between state and federal governments, not to give a gap of freedom. Because Missouri released and surrendered him to federal custody and only kept parole control if he were not imprisoned, the state term was, for practical purposes, no longer an obstacle. The Court relied on the governing statute and affirmed the District Court’s dismissal of the habeas corpus petition, reversing the Court of Appeals.

Real world impact

The decision means that when a state paroled and hands over a prisoner to federal authorities, the prisoner will generally begin serving the federal sentence rather than gaining temporary freedom. It prevents convicted federal offenders from being free in a gap between state release and federal custody. The ruling settles a disagreement among appellate courts and clarifies how states and the federal government coordinate custody of prisoners.