Maleng v. Cook

Background

In 1958 a man was convicted of robbery in Washington and given a 20-year sentence that expired in 1978. While on parole he was later convicted in state court and in 1978 received two life terms and a ten-year term; the 1958 conviction increases the mandatory minimum for those 1978 sentences. He was also convicted in federal court and is serving a 30-year federal term in California. Washington lodged a detainer so he will begin the 1978 state sentences after the federal term. In 1985 he filed a pro se federal habeas petition challenging the 1958 conviction for lack of a competency hearing and because that prior conviction had been used to enhance later state sentences. The District Court dismissed; the Ninth Circuit reversed.

Reasoning

The Court examined whether a fully expired conviction leaves a person "in custody" for a federal habeas attack simply because it might or did enhance later sentences. The Court said an expired sentence alone does not make someone "in custody" under that old conviction. But relying on prior decisions about parole, detainers, and successive sentences, the Court held that because Washington had imposed 1978 sentences and filed a detainer to secure the prisoner’s return, the petitioner was in custody under those later state sentences when he filed. The Court therefore read the pro se petition as a challenge to the 1978 sentences and affirmed the Court of Appeals on that narrow custody point, leaving substantive questions about the old conviction unresolved.

Real world impact

People serving other terms but subject to state detainers can bring federal habeas challenges to outstanding state sentences they have not yet begun to serve. An already-expired conviction by itself does not qualify someone as "in custody" for a direct federal habeas attack on that old conviction. The decision is limited to who counts as "in custody" and does not decide whether the earlier conviction can be overturned on the merits.