*1 fixed in the sum the amount would be school cost the services The master’s ture. amply supported yet $8,500. it was money, This sum of a fair board fail- hours, board’s own of the travel and conference consequence by court direct Nevertheless, plans. pro- further Mr. Leventhal. His expended by ure to submit plan approved was to the when the master’s were valuable case fessional services court, defended the school board $8,500. the district We re- reasonably worth and are as the ele- although losing however, findings it on as to frain, making from structure. mentary grade any legal or nature, extent value to the first decision rendered services forward, school point From Appeals Fifth Circuit Court of the inevitable, recog- and bowed to the board Separate Municipal Henry Clarksdale gov- orders desegregation new nized that since, District, in our School litigation schools. The erned the Clarksdale inequitable view, manifestly it be would contested, yet this does vigorously judicial princi- or under either Section 1617 unnecessary or vexatious mean that it was allowance. ples to such an entertain fight. yield without for the board not with the fore- So, consistent gentlemen, attorney appears Though the board’s directing the order going, I will issue an of what personal view unyielding be in his counsel pay plaintiffs’ school board in school required the constitution further allow- $1,500 sum of and adequate basis cases, hardly findings detailed unreasonably ances. have made acted itself holding the board the construc- if have erred in thought On obdurately manner. or obstinate in an findings of considered, my ev- tion of Section 1617 or contrary, everything obstinacy on opposite lack of obdurate fairly justifies idence more will board, Appeals the suit was That school conclusion: case, adjustment it was such as bitter, position school be in hotly-contested unnecessarily vexatiously may proper. deem conducted that the board censorious manner or in such attorney fees pay plaintiffs’
should July were incurred perplexing the case was difficult
That but this is reason
cannot be conduct.
charge the board with obstinate the Fifth Cir- to this aspect answer evidence, directive, as on the
cuit’s we find files, as on our records and well MATTHEWS, Plaintiff-Appellant, board, litiga- in the conduct school unreasonable tion, not act did July DEES, Warden, Hayden obstinate manner obdurately not, for that Defendant-Appellee. and that should reason, pay pre-July required to by plaintiffs. 1972, legal expenses incurred States Court of on the record The Court further finds attorney fees allowable the reasonable $1,500. 1,1972, would be July forward
from the time Mr. Leven- sum is based on This court, as well expended case in
thal of travel and conference
as investment
time. only, I would further purposes appeal is due for that if an additional award
find July prior to rendered counsel services *2 Castle,
Marilyn Atty., C. Asst. Dist. Ossie Brown, La., B. Atty., Rouge, Dist. Baton Gen., B. Rutledge, Barbara Asst. Atty. Wil- Guste, Jr., Gen., Orleans, liam J. Atty. New La., defendant-appellee. CLARK, FAY,
Before Cir- Judges. cuit CLARK, Judge: CHARLES appealed Matthews has from the district petition court’s denial for a corpus. petition, habeas In that on only Matthews raises one conten- tion: that he is have his nine- teen-year attempted murder reduced to take into account the time he jail sentencing was unable post bond. In Louisiana the maximum sentence attempted murder is years. twenty Matthews contends that be- indigency prevented cause his his release sentencing, before he will be denied protection unless he receives incarceration. district court’s that Mat-
thews was unable to bail because of his appeal. on challenged then, issue, is whether Matthews must spent credited which he with jail prior being sentenced. April arrested on guilty by and found jury April sentenced, however, 1967. He was not September
until he served jail months and 18 being sentenced. When that time is added to his sentence of years, nineteen the total time he will spent prison have exceeds the years twenty legislature which the has es tablished as a maximum for the crime of attempted murder. If is not credited spent at least of the time sentencing, he will serve Matthews, pro se. Achee, MacAllynn Rouge, permissi Baton La. his is not a result Such (Court-appointed), for plaintiff-appellant. ble under the Constitution. See Williams custody exceeds the statu- 26 the maximum, explained pre- As this court is no for a tory room otherwise, sumption, Hart conclusive sentencing judge gave “the criminal *3 Estelle, custody. not v. to make bond should result sentence Cf. Parker defendant imprison- extending supra. Similarly, the duration of his since Matthews did not sentence, statutory possible ment' the maximum.” Id. the the receive maximum Wainwright cannot control. at rule of Hill v. 185. do, however, make precedents clear not, however, Stating principle does imprisonment of it is total special in this case. A the issue resolve with which statutory maximum over the determining whether problem arises here Estelle concerned. Parker v. the courts are for the credit entire Matthews concern in these words: emphasized that pre-sentencing imprisonment of period right “although is no absolute which, period when added for credit, a of such sentence denial detention sentence, would make him nineteen-year (e. poverty g., a credit due to defendant’s twenty years. serve over the maximum bail) or to the financial previous has a None of our cases involved constitutionally impermissible some other this, judge im- situation such as where be allowed to extend a state basis will not a which was less than the posed sentence prisoner’s beyond the maximum which, when added to the maximum but at prescribed for the crime.” 498 F.2d 627 already spent prison, time exceeded the (emphasis original). It is still the rule in statutory maximum. some cases the “ this circuit ‘there is federal consti- maximum exceeded the total right to for time served tutional imprisonment. pre-sentencing sentence,’ of a state and in the absence Alabama, (5th v. Cir. Jackson credit is within granting statute the of such Henderson, v. 425 F.2d 1976); Gremillion sentencing judge.”1 the discretion 1970). For cases we 1293 those Cir. F.2d at Alabama, supra, v. 530 1235 Jackson pre a “conclusive were to establish able Gremillion, 425 at (quoting supra, gave sumption that is, however, 1294). a federal consti- There pre-sentence custody.” Par subjected right impris- to be tutional Estelle, 625, 627 (5th ker 498 F.2d v. statutory maximum beyond the onment 1974), cert. 421 U.S. S.Ct. indigency. solely Williams See (1975). In other cases 44 241-42, Illinois, at 90 supra, v. U.S. defendant judge sentenced the trial conclude that 2022. Mat- at S.Ct. period even there had equal protection be denied if thews would period pre-sentencing custody. been a period total were incarcerated Wainwright, Hill twenty years. He there- which exceeded ; supra. 1972) Hart v. 16 months and 18 fore entitled credit for rule, a different those cases established served before sen- prisoner one held that “a state who tencing due to imposable prison has the maximum received must be cred- offense district court’s order the mo- if he was corpus tion is reversed and for habeas indigence.” to his to make bail due unable cause is with directions remanded opin- at supra, 465 F.2d Wainwright, Hill be issued accordance ion. the two falls between This case AND REMANDED. of the sentence and REVERSED
rules. Because the sum
Williams,
(La. 1972);
statute,
262 La.
264 So.2d
but
does
now has such
Louisiana
Alabama,
1231, 1237-38
apply
cf. Jackson
to Matthews’
sentence which
imposed prior
its enactment. La.Code Crim.
(West Supp.1978).
State v.
art. 880
Pro.Ann.
Judge,
imum reason
concurring
indigency.2
Shortly af-
dissenting
part.
Williams, however,
ter
Supreme
Short,
also
decided Tate v.
I
holding
concur in the
the lower
(1971)
in which it
court’s
to be
ruling is due
reversed.
dis-
made
imprisonment
clear that
rea-
computation
sent from
majority’s
constitutionally
son of
imper-
credit due
missible. The
rule
Tate
is not limited to
in excess of the
It seems to me
compli-
that we are over
perceive
maximum.
cannot
any basis for
cating
fairly
what should
simple
rule.
applying the
principle
constitutional
in a
principle
constitutional
which underlies
different manner here than when the maxi-
Williams v.
*4
mum
is imposed.
his
Because
2018,
(1970),
takes confinement into account in
setting the
Bryans
Blackwell,
sentence.
1967),
cert. denied 391
(1968); Mitchell, Landman v. cert. denied 404 U.S. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS (1972). In BOARD, Petitioner, Bryans adopted the District of Columbia
Circuit’s statement this rule: possible, Whenever it is as a matter of TEMPLE-EASTEX, INCORPORATED, calculation, mechanical that credit could Operating its Divisions Southwestern given, conclusively have been we will Co., Inc., Temple Industries, Timber given.1 sume was Incorporated, Wholly-Owned Eastex Time, Inc., Respondents. presumption when an fails accused in- Subsidiaries digent is the statutory sentenced to maxi- mum having after United States Court of Hill Wainwright, majority views this falling case as somewhere in between. I do not. majority recognizing correct the rule of Williams is limited to a
prohibition of the max- States, Stapf v. U.S.App.D.C. 2. Williams dealt non- payment of a fine. that case the accused was also sentenced to confinement period.