Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

defendantattorneystatutepleahabeas corpusbaildeclaratory judgment
defendantattorneystatutepleahabeas corpusbaildeclaratory judgment

Related Cases

Griffin v. Breckenridge
View Case »
Quito v. Barr
View Case »
Okafor v. Gonzales
View Case »
Reyes v. Van Elk, Ltd
View Case »
Heaven v. Gonzales
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Lopez v. U.S Attorney Gen.

Facts

Jose Veiga Lopez pleaded guilty in two criminal cases and was sentenced to a six-year term in each case to run concurrently. He filed a habeas corpus petition requesting credit for the time he spent free on bail from August 14, 1970, to May 21, 1971. The U.S. Magistrate filed a Report and Recommendation, which Lopez objected to, and he subsequently filed a petition for declaratory judgment.

Jose Veiga Lopez pleaded guilty in two criminal cases and was sentenced to a six-year term in each case to run concurrently. He filed a habeas corpus petition requesting credit for the time he spent free on bail from August 14, 1970, to May 21, 1971. The U.S. Magistrate filed a Report and Recommendation, which Lopez objected to, and he subsequently filed a petition for declaratory judgment.

Issue

Whether the time spent free on bail should be credited towards the sentence under 18 U.S.C.A. 3568.

Whether the time spent free on bail should be credited towards the sentence under 18 U.S.C.A. 3568.

Rule

The term 'custody' under 18 U.S.C.A. 3568 does not include time spent free on bail awaiting sentencing.

The term 'custody' under 18 U.S.C.A. 3568 does not include time spent free on bail awaiting sentencing.

Analysis

The court analyzed the legislative history of 18 U.S.C.A. 3568 and determined that the intent of Congress was to eliminate disparities in sentencing. The court concluded that the definition of custody did not extend to periods when a defendant was free on bail, as the statute was designed to grant credit only for time spent in actual custody or confinement.

The court analyzed the legislative history of 18 U.S.C.A. 3568 and determined that the intent of Congress was to eliminate disparities in sentencing. The court concluded that the definition of custody did not extend to periods when a defendant was free on bail, as the statute was designed to grant credit only for time spent in actual custody or confinement.

Conclusion

The court denied the petition for habeas corpus, ruling that the time spent free on bail could not be credited towards Lopez's sentence. The petition for declaratory judgment was also denied as moot.

The court denied the petition for habeas corpus, ruling that the time spent free on bail could not be credited towards Lopez's sentence. The petition for declaratory judgment was also denied as moot.

Who won?

The Attorney General of the United States prevailed in the case because the court found that the statutory definition of custody did not include time spent on bail.

The Attorney General of the United States prevailed in the case because the court found that the statutory definition of custody did not include time spent on bail.

You must be