## Facts

- Harvey F. Garlotte pleaded guilty in Mississippi to marijuana possession with intent to distribute and to two counts of murder in the same proceeding.
- The court imposed a three-year sentence for the marijuana offense, to run consecutively to two concurrent life sentences for murder.
- Mississippi law required minimum service time on the marijuana sentence and a minimum period on the life sentences before parole eligibility.
- Garlotte completed the incarceration period for the marijuana sentence and then began serving the life sentences.
- After exhausting state collateral review efforts regarding the marijuana conviction, Garlotte filed a federal habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging the marijuana conviction.
- Although he had finished the three-year term, the marijuana conviction continued to postpone his parole-eligibility date on the life sentences.

## Issues

1. Whether a prisoner serving consecutive sentences is “in custody” under a sentence already served for purposes of habeas jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a) when the challenged conviction still delays parole eligibility on later sentences.
2. Whether consecutive sentences should be treated as a single, continuous term of custody rather than “disaggregated” sentence-by-sentence for the “in custody” requirement.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court reversed the Fifth Circuit and remanded.
- The Court held that a prisoner serving a consecutive series of sentences remains “in custody” under each sentence in the series until all are served.
- Because the first conviction in the series continued to delay parole eligibility, Garlotte satisfied § 2254(a)’s “in custody” requirement when he filed his petition.

## Legal Principles

- For § 2254(a), consecutive sentences are treated in the aggregate; a petitioner is “in custody” under any one of them until the consecutive term ends.
- The “in custody” inquiry focuses on whether the challenged conviction has a present effect on the fact or duration of confinement, including parole eligibility within an ongoing consecutive series.
- A conviction whose sentence has formally expired may still be attacked in habeas if it is part of an unbroken consecutive sentencing package that continues to restrain the petitioner.
- A prior “expired” conviction used only to enhance a later sentence, outside a continuous consecutive series, does not by itself satisfy the “in custody” requirement.

## Conclusion

The Court held that consecutive sentences constitute a continuous term of custody for federal habeas purposes, permitting a prisoner to challenge an earlier, formally completed sentence under § 2254 when that conviction still delays parole eligibility during the remaining consecutive sentences.


Garlotte v. Fordice, 515 U.S. 39 (1995)