Gamron v. Parratt
256 N.W.2d 867
Neb.
1977
Check Treatment

*1 tо the cause District Court for reconsideration light holding Cunningham of our in Johnson and 2dW. my the result

154, 256 N. W. 2d 869. Gamron, appellant, Parratt,

Robert L. v. Robert F. Warden, Nebraska Penal аnd Correctional appellee. Complex, 1977. No. 41092. ‍‌​‌‌‌​‌​‌‌​‌​‌​​‌​​‌​‌​​‌​‌​‌​​​‌‌‌‌​‌​​​​​‌‌​​​‍Gaughаn ap- T. Clement Goos, L. for Richard pellant. Douglas, Attorney L. Gеneral,

Paul and Paul W. Snyder, appellee J., Spencer, before C. White,

Heard Boslaugh, McCown, Clinton, Brodkey, JJ. White, Spencеr, J. appellant, ‍‌​‌‌‌​‌​‌‌​‌​‌​​‌​​‌​‌​​‌​‌​‌​​​‌‌‌‌​‌​​​​​‌‌​​​‍Gamron, In this action Robert proceeding against brought a habeas *2 contending provisions pelleе of the under warden completed 1975, 567, and served he L. B. had Laws by rеquired him. The court to be served the time prem- appellee’s to on the motion dismiss sustained question in not be raised a that thе involved could ise corpus action, not be and also L. B. 567 could habeas retroactively. applied We reversе. application question of the of the retroactive

The provisions in and of B. ‍‌​‌‌‌​‌​‌‌​‌​‌​​‌​​‌​‌​​‌​‌​‌​​​‌‌‌‌​‌​​​​​‌‌​​​‍567 was decided Johnson 154, 156 N. W. 2d 869 v. provisions of there held that the Laws We application 567, if do have retrоactive L. B. by they approved of That the Board Pardons. are controlling herein. issue and is case decides this corpus is that habeas is issue raised second The. remedy propеr herein. The State contends not a imprison- person a of to from sentence that release a corpus, aрpear by sen- it must that the ment habeas absolutely true, of It is most the tence void. was imprisonment involving of which cases sentences question this court have involved the have reached аppellant herein is not of The at- a void sentence. tacking validity of his as were the the sentence by pellants the сited the State. In this ac- in cases his he has served sentence tion contends Gamron discharged. to to He is entitled a is entitlеd be and hearing on this issue. Jones, 645, 28 2d

Gamron v. 148 Neb. N. W. 403 (1947), corpus not lie to habeas will se- determined prisoner the sentence im- of a until cure the release petitioner ‍‌​‌‌‌​‌​‌‌​‌​‌​​‌​​‌​‌​​‌​‌​‌​​​‌‌‌‌​‌​​​​​‌‌​​​‍posed the has served sen- If his is served. a,nd illegally corpus being held habeas is is tenсe he proper remedy. a Berry Wolff, Neb. W. 885

In being (1975), he held in was thе inmate claimed an mandatory past Penitentiary releаse date. his He sought by corpus. Relief denied relief habeаs was accepted appeal. him in District the Court. We the sug- judgment affirmed, While the was we did not gest remedy. corpus apрropriate not habeas the was petitioner-appellant alleged

The has facts herein discharge. which if would him to his He true entitle is within ambit of decision in Tail therefore the our (1944), Olson, 145 Neb. 2d 161 application which “In of we said: an a writ petitioner applicant habeas if the or sets which, true, forth facts if make out a case would ‍‌​‌‌‌​‌​‌‌​‌​‌​​‌​​‌​‌​​‌​‌​‌​​​‌‌‌‌​‌​​​​​‌‌​​​‍discharge, which to would entitle him his then thе right petitioner writ is a matter of produced be the should heаring a to held thereon determine question presented.’’ fact judgment The is is herein reversed the cause hearing remanded to the a con- District Court for formity opinion. with this *3 J., my concurring

I concur in the result 154, 256 869. in the result.

Clinton, result the reason stated in the McCown, J., concurrence in Johnson and Cun- ningham N. 256 W. 2d 869. Nebraska, appellee, Davis,

State of v. Clifford

appellant. 1977. Nos. 40688.