Document: 455 U.S. 624 102 S.Ct. 1322 71 L.Ed.2d 508 Michael P. LANE, Director, Illinois Department of Corrections, Petitionerv.Lawrence WILLIAMS and Oscar Southall. No. 80-1240. Argued Dec. 1, 1981. Decided March 23, 1982. Syllabus In 1975, both respondents pleaded guilty in unrelated state-court prosecutions for burglary, an offense punishable at that time by imprisonment indeterminate term years a mandatory 3-year parole term. Neither respondent, during his plea acceptance hearing, was informed negotiated sentence included the Each respondent completed prison sentence, released on parole, then reincarcerated violation. While custody, each filed petitions federal habeas corpus, which were consolidated District Court, alleging failure trial courts to advise them requirement before accepting their pleas deprived due process law. The Court found and, accordance with relief requested them, merely ordered release through "specific performance" bargains rather than nullifying allowing plead anew. After remand from Appeals based question as exhaustion state remedies, ultimately again entered judgment respondents. Since they had already been discharged court simply order "declaring void term[s]." affirmed. Held: Respondents' claims are moot. Assuming rendered void, could have sought convictions set aside anew, this case would not be Such free all consequences flowing well subject reconviction possibly greater thus preserving live controversy determine whether constitutional violation occurred entitled sought. However, seeking enforcement" agreement elimination sentences, instead elected attack only sentences remedy alleged removing consequence gave rise harm. terms now expired, no longer any direct restraint result terms, is doctrine criminal conviction moot fact underlying has nor where it "capable repetition, yet evading review," applicable here. Pp. 630-634. 633 F.2d 71, vacated. B. Weinstein, Chicago, Ill., petitioner. Martha A. Mills, Justice STEVENS delivered opinion Court. 1 charge three-year We granted certiorari consider unable reach question, however, because we find respondents' 2 * On 11, Lawrence Williams appeared single count burglary. Before plea, judge elicited Williams' understanding agreement, attorney prosecutor agreed receive one two exchange pleading guilty. he impose bargained advised him nature against rights waive established factual basis indicated understood wished 3 At guilty, law required every certain felonies, including include special addition imprisonment.1 During neither judge, prosecutor, defense counsel three years. 4 May 20, 1976, parole. 3, 1977, arrested reasons do appear record 16, returned violator. petition writ corpus United States Northern Illinois. He "was informed" attached until months discharge "his present incarceration therefore Due Process Clause 14th Amendment U. S. Constitution." App. 12. did ask allow It "freeing control" Warden "all future liability" under original sentence.2 5 January 4, 1978, induced unfairly Fourteenth custody. ex rel. v. Morris, 447 F.Supp. 95 (1978). expressly "opted specific bargain "rather nullification plea." Id., 101. precisely what requested. 6 not, immediately stay give State opportunity file motion reconsideration. lifted, 6-month "supervisory term." subsequently denied State's reconsider appealed.3 appeal pending, expired custody Corrections. 7 facts concerning Southall similar. Pursuant accepted advance court, burglary sentenced minimum period year maximum exceed transcript proceeding contains statement Southall's public defender, or imposed Like Williams, later declared violator.4 reincarcerated, "immediate release." 65.5 His Williams. 8 "Southall's situation factually indistinguishable Williams'." F.Supp., 102. corpus. decision, but compliance decision Court.6 9 reversed ground failed exhaust available remedy. 594 614 (CA7 1979). reaching parties submit supplemental briefs issue mootness. concluded cases noted extended beyond date its reinstated. still alive "there remain collateral might lingering effects since [Williams was] [a] violatio[n] parole"; "would upon [his] recor[d] various possible adverse consequences." 615.7 Moreover, capable review; "[i]t obvious short often remaining same may expected raised other petitioners similarly situated doubtful expectations resolution." Ibid. 10 Corrections.8 remand, that, intervening Supreme remedies futile. 483 775 (1980). respondents; terms." 39. affirmed (1980), certiorari. Sub nom. Franzen 452 914, 101 3047, 69 417. II 11 Respondents claim violated when without informing requirement. Assuming, sake argument, court's void,9 seek error quite different ways. They anew; event, either stand try negotiate properly armed information received Alternatively, it; remove harmful incomplete advice. 12 If convictions, sentence. Cf. North Carolina Pearce, 395 711, 89 2072, 23 656. Thus, sought.10 13 previously anew.11 Rather, course attack, own accord. imprisoned lesser showing needed establish prove offense. Their liberty freedom movement way curtailed expired. 14 those these proceedings, "Nullification important benefits defendant . urging correction served another matter." Rice, 404 244, 248, 92 402, 405, 30 413. 15 Appeals, relying Carafas LaVallee, 391 234, 88 1556, 20 554, violations sufficient "collateral effects" warrant exercise relief. held New York law, "[i]n [the petitioner's] conviction, cannot engage businesses; serve official labor union specified time; vote election State; juror." 237, S.Ct., 1559 (footnotes omitted). These substantial civil penalties ensure litigant " 'a stake survives satisfaction him.' (quoting Fiswick States, 329 211, 222, 67 224, 230, 91 L.Ed. 196). Sibron York, 392 40, 57, 1889, 1899, 917, stated "a if shown there possibility legal will challenged conviction." 16 case. No disabilities such finding individual parole.12 most, non-statutory occur; employment prospects, proceeding, affected. People Halterman, 45 Ill.App.3d 605, 608, Ill.Dec. 271, 359 N.E.2d 1223, 1225 (1977).13 discretionary decisions made employer sentencing governed mere presence absence recorded parole; take into consideration, more directly influenced by, conduct formed Any flow whatever evoke revocation removed—or even affected—by recites "void."14 17 never attacked, substantive procedural grounds, Respondent sentence; release" Through passage time, obtained circumstances, remains. 18 also review." Southern Pacific Terminal Co. ICC, 219 498, 515, 31 279, 283, 55 310. That doctrine, reasonable expectation complaining party subjected action again." Weinstein Bradford, 423 147, 149, 96 347, 348, 46 350; Murphy Hunt, 478, 482, 1181, 1183, 353. acutely aware term; open attack. persons litigate similar does save 19 should dismissed so ordered. 21 MARSHALL, whom BRENNAN BLACKMUN join, dissenting. 22 majority announces today because, view, revocations, findings conditions below. I dissent holding believe contrary Court's precedents ignores attach recognized brief mootness analogous cases. recognizes challenges "is 917 (1968). This consistently refused canvass ascertain "the actual existence consequences," presumed exist. 55, 1898 (discussing Morgan, 346 502, 74 247, 98 248 (1954), Pollard 352 354, 77 481, 393 (1957)). See 237-238, 1559, 554 24 Today, finds inapplicable, arguing who seeks review correct served. 413 (1971) (per curiam ). Had allegedly incident, agree Rice controls join majority's conclusion "expired accord." Ante, 631. Here, Therefore, unlike reduction after completed: expunged, avoid violations. violations, interest lower courts' holdings performance pleas, form declaration expunged. 25 turns Because determination involves difficult applied. avoids placing awkward position determining questions it. By presuming consequences, predict manner use proceedings. An erroneous injures individuals challenging constitutionality hinders ability Today's unfortunate example interpretation. 26 apparently cursory examination statutes. Finding statutory disabilities, glibly dismisses nonstatutory "discretionary decisions" 632-633.1 reasoning appears derive nothing judicial intuition. 27 Several law.2 First, aggravation makes unwarranted assumption declaring effect violation, itself, deciding enhance recognizes, revocation. Under Prisoner Review Board given discretion setting Ill.Rev.Stat., ch. 38, ¶ 1003-3-7 (Supp.1980).3 Conditions prohibit otherwise innocent affirmatively require parolee work rehabilitation programs. Parole revoked conditions. 1003-3-9 (Supp.1980); Board, Rules Governing 9-10, 13-16 (1979), Ill. Register 144, 162-166 (1979). giving completely innocuous prohibited condition entirely irrelevant once void. 28 clear innocent, itself context, appellate remanding new trial, evidence support verdict doubt matter retried. See, e.g., Chellew, 963, 313 284 (1974). Wunnenberg, 87 32, 34, 42 606, 409 101, 103 probation entire 274, (1977) (challenge submitted consideration misfortune being convicted some crime"). conclusively demonstrate cast serious validity contrary. Furthermore, argued deeply interested can status [respondents] purposes ever come contact justice system." Additional Memorandum Appellants Nos. 78-1321, 78-1322, 78-1323, 78-1380 (CA7), p. (Mem. Appeals). argument least implies 29 Second, overlooks attaches returning prison. rules promulgated pursuant &Par; 1003-3-1, 1003-3-2 (Supp.1980), forth fairly criteria denied. 144-169 provide relevant part: "V. BASIS FOR DENYING PAROLE statute, shall candidate determines that: 32 "A. There risk conform following factors: 33 "1. Existence prior adult felony (mitigating aggravating factors considered). 34 "2. apparent pattern aggressive assaultive behavior (misdemeanor offenses 35 3. Prior within five 36 "4. Refusal supervised 37 "5. means financial place residence. (Continuance six resolution problem.) 38 "6. A psychiatric likely conform." 153 (1979) (emphasis added). 39 rules, violation; unless falls listed section. reason assume fall factors, deny notwithstanding fact, "still ensuring are, indeed, expunged," burdensome considered Mem. 5. Howell Wolff, 78 C 951 (ND Aug. 9, 1978) (unpublished Judge Leighton, reprinted Appeals) (finding potential burden parole-violation status). III 40 undertakes misleading starkly demonstrates wisdom applying apply presume merits Even apply, reveals wrong concluding law; question. 1005-8-1 (1975). first Legislature 1972. 1972 Ill.Laws, P.A. 77-2097, § 5-8-1. years; provided "[t]he Pardon enter releasing discharging commitment committing offense." 3-3-8 (current version 1003-3-8) (Supp.1980)). 1978 amended reduced, 1977 80-1099, Wills, 61 Ill.2d 105, 330 505 (1975), cert. denied, 999, 430, 374, must explained accepted. held, applied retroactively; thus, between 1973, became effective, 19, Wills decided, state-law "[a]ny further [the] deems appropriate just [m]atter." 13. Although denial dated 27, February 2, 1978. began serving October 8, 1974, arrest. September 22, 1975. 1976—well told control Corrections—he violator "as November 1975." disclose allege know "[he] [he] detained parole." 65. commanding stayed permit contain terminating stay, order. 614, 615 identify consequences. "similar principle," 554. subsequent proceedings uncertainty existed current Southall, declares here, "totally Corrections 24, 1979." Brief Petitioner 10. Our detention Boykin Alabama, 238, 1709, 274; Santobello 257, 495, 427; Henderson 426 637, 2253, 49 108. decide whether, known consequence. collateral, direct, previous retrial. supra. general prayer [m]atter"—or inherent power fashion right—is equivalent request convictions. need here Unless relief, surely retrial chosen define narrowly offense; generally, extend completion imprisonment. 1005-5-5 (Supp.1980). dissenting opinion, MARSHALL argues exists determination. consequence" insufficient bring Carafas. concerned existing disabilities; petitioner's presently barred offices, voting elections, juror. disability. part records affect violate prison, become eligible themselves able—and indeed law—to prevent occurring. render ineligible factor, among many, authority Collateral final endeavor undertaken lightly. warranted absent complainant suffers harm avoid. expunge make change portion records. Nor cryptic reference 1328, n. 14. easily several grounds "expunge" based. "expungement" relieve status. obtain very limited expungement procedure cover refers. 206-5 (Supp.1980) (person, offense, acquitted arrest records). vacated appeal, petitioner district accord unavailable hardly unconstitutionally obtained. despite officially "expunged." (1980); Of course, express prerequisite challenge 302 54-57, 1898-99, (1968) 196 (1946); (1954); Paragraph provides: "(a) necessary assist leading law-abiding life. subject: "(1) statute ; "(2) refrain possessing firearm dangerous weapon. "(b) pursue study vocational training; undergo medical treatment, treatment drug addiction alcoholism; "(3) attend reside facility instruction residence "(4) dependents; "(5) report agent Corrections; "(6) visit home elsewhere extent duties ." 9-12 158-160

Category: 8