Alaska v. Wright

A habeas petitioner does not remain "in custody" under a conviction "after the sentence imposed for it has fully expired, merely because of the possibility that the prior conviction will be used to enhance the sentences imposed for any subsequent crimes of which he is convicted.” Maleng v. Cook, 490 U. S. 492 (1989).

Respondent was convicted of 13 counts of sexual abuse of a minor in Alaska. Respondent, after relocating and failing to register as a sex offender in a different state, violated federal law. Respondent pled guilty to one count of failure to register under 18 U.S.C.  §2250(a). During those proceedings, Respondent filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§2241 and 2254. The District Court denied the motion, reasoning that Respondent was not “in custody pursuant to the judgement of a state court.” §2254(a). The Court of Appeals reversed, reasoning that Respondent’s state conviction was a necessary predicate to his federal conviction and therefore, he was in custody pursuant to the judgment of the state court. “A habeas petitioner does not remain ‘in custody’ under a conviction ‘after the sentence imposed for it has fully expired, merely because of the possibility that the prior conviction will be used to enhance the sentences imposed for any subsequent crimes of which he is convicted.’” Maleng v. Cook, 490 U. S. 492 (1989). Thus, Respondent’s state conviction did not render him “in custody pursuant to the judgment of a state court” under §2254(a). Petition for a writ of certiorari granted, vacated and remanded.