TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Fred Nash Ortega v. Wayne K. Patterson, Warden, Colorado State Penitentiary

Fred Nash ORTEGA, Appellant, v. Wayne K. PATTERSON, Warden, Colorado State Penitentiary, Appellee

Ortega v. Wayne K. Patterson,, Colo. State Penitentiary, 354 F.2d 691 (10th Cir. 1965)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · U.S. Courts of Appeals
Decided
December 16, 1965
Docket
No. 8369_1
Judges
Murrah, Breitenstein, Seth
Citations
354 F.2d 6911965 U.S. App. LEXIS 3645

Opinion — Per Curiam

PER CURIAM.

The district court denied habeas corpus relief to appellant-petitioner who is *692 confined in the Colorado penitentiary under a 1958 sentence imposed after his plea of guilty to a burglary charge. The sentence ordered confinement in the Colorado reformatory. Petitioner was transferred from that institution to the penitentiary by order of the governor. The contention is that the statute under which the transfer was ordered became effective after the sentence was pronounced and its application to petitioner was ex post facto in violation of Art. 1, Sec. 10, of the United States Constitution.

A 1951 statute empowered the governor to transfer prisoners from the reformatory to the penitentiary. See Colo. Sess.L. (1951), pp. 141-143. The Colorado Supreme Court has held that this law is “impliedly present” in sentences imposed after its passage. See Tinsley v. Crespin, 137 Colo. 302, 306-307 , 324 P.2d 1033 . Immaterial amendments effective after the sentence do not make the application of the statute to the petitioner ex post facto.

Affirmed.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1966: 119662026peak 1966 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Roberts v. Pepersack256 F. Supp. 415 (D. Maryland 1966)

Most recent

  1. Roberts v. Pepersack256 F. Supp. 415 (D. Maryland 1966)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 1

DepthCaseCited by
Tinsley v. Crespin, 324 P.2d 1033 (Colo. 1958) 9

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list