Document: 395 U.S. 327 89 S.Ct. 1715 23 L.Ed.2d 340 Adolpho RODRIQUEZ, Petitioner,v.UNITED STATES. No. 749. Argued March 26, 1969. Decided June 2, William R. Wallace, San Francisco, Cal., for petitioner. Beatrice Rosenberg, Washington, D.C., respondent. Mr. Justice MARSHALL delivered the opinion of Court. 1 Petitioner brought this suit post-conviction relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, alleging that after his conviction on several narcotics charges he had been improperly denied right to appeal. was sentenced 11 concurrent 20-year terms 20, 1963. Immediately sentencing, petitioner's retained counsel attempted make a motion requesting leave petitioner proceed in forma pauperis. The trial judge cut off, saying all motions be writing. Without making any further inquiry, adjourned court. No written were ever filed, and did not submit notice appeal within 10-day period specified by applicable rule.1 On August 7, 1963, time expired, file himself. He declared an oral given at trial. ruled expiration deprived court jurisdit ion. then sought Court Appeals Ninth Circuit. alleged told perfect appeal, but failed do so. Circuit lack jurisdiction, citing United States v. Robinson, 361 220, 80 282, 4 259 (1960). It also refused habeas corpus. 2 This action commenced February 15, 1966. Mexican descent knowledge English limited. contended fraudulently him asked set aside resentenced so could properly take District Northern California application affirmed. 387 F.2d 117 (1967). Both courts relied rule requiring applicants position disclose what errors they would raise demonstrate denial caused prejudice. We granted certiorari resolve conflict among circuits about propriety such requirement.2 393 951, 380, 21 362 (1968). reverse. I. 3 As has noted before, '(p)resent federal law made from Court's judgment criminal case is, effect, matter right.' Coppedge States, 369 438, 441, 82 917, 919, 8 (1962). seems require applicant 2255 show more than simple deprivation before can accorded. requires some likelihood success appeal; if is unlikely succeed, characterize as species harmless error. cannot subscribe approach. Applicants must, indigent, prepare their petitions without assistance counsel. See Johnson Avery, 483, 487—488, 747, 749—750, 718 (1969). Those whose education limited those, like petitioner, who facility language might have grave difficulty even summary statement points raised Moreover, may aware which occurred They thus only chance though never preparing one. Like approach rejected long ago Powell Alabama, 287 45, 69, 53 55, 64, 77 L.Ed. 158 (1932), Circuit's requirement makes indigent defendant face 'the danger because does know how establish innocence.' sentencing screen out sp posedly unmeritorious appeals ways Coppedge. frustrated should treated exactly other appellants; additional hurdle clear just rights violated earlier stage proceedings. Accordingly, we hold below erred rejecting failure specify reinstated. II. 5 Government, while arguing pleadings, urges us remand truncated factual hearing. Drawing upon recognition Machibroda 368 487, 495, 510, 514, 7 473 (1962), hearing 'does strip district discretion exercise common sense,' Government suggests instructed obtain affidavit attorney explaining why no filed. explanation, together with allegations, used 6 issue present when think it now. For 'just circumstances,' 2106, dispose arguments finally stage. Six years now elapsed since sentenced, see delay prolonged proceedings serve cause justice. appears transcript erroneously advise At trial, Fed.Rule Crim.Proc. 37(a)(2) required inform unrepresented defendants clerk request defendant.3 Counsel's attempt pauperis put future. unless contemplated, there reason motion. recognized, therefore precisely kind needed protection afforded rule. Had known him, easily avoided difficulties faced. very least, inquired into circumstances surrounding His effectively Since record us, need determinations remand. Cf. Smith, 268 (C.A.6th Cir. 1967). reversed remanded where manner prescribed rules. ordered. Reversed remanded. 9 HARLAN, concurring part dissenting part. 10 I agree Part opinion, II, reinstates below. In taking course too insensitive what, record, due judge, counsel, orderly administration process. my wrongfully opportunity immediately following lawyer indicated orally wished pauperis, informed 'all motions' Thereafter filed limit. alleges neglected so, those allegations tested adversary 12 undertakes justify its decision findings score characterizing 'error' judge's 'to appeal,' supposedly 37(a)(2), concluding level. ante, 331-332. 13 Although share concern receive promptly legally am unable accept either attribution or bypassing established methods determining truth allegations. Rule 'a represented counsel' appeal.1 (Emphasis supplied.) instance, both sentencing. excerpts relies contain nothing rebut natural inference, apparently drawn continue represent least purpose filing Indeed, own facts reveals inference wholly justified, asserts 'his advised wife arrange appeals.'2 Thus, assumed motion,' 332, omission surely most 14 Court, determined whether fact instruct me interest procedure fairness attorney. 15 Furthermore, suggested permit begin obtaining response Who possession documentary evidence conclusively showing unfounded? Or knows wish concede accuracy allegations? case, obviate necessity full-blown If evidence, controversy, required. Such entirely fits U.. sense.' 37(a), App.Proc. 4(b). originated two 1964 decisions, Wilson 338 54, Miller 339 581. McGarry Fogliani, 370 42 (C.A.9th 1966). First adopted intermediate position; plain reversible error application, defeat futile. Desmond 333 378 (1964). find support Tenth Hannigan 341 587 (1965). Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, Eighth, Columbia Circuits issues Camp 352 800 (C.A.5th 1965); 1967); Calland 323 405 (C.A.7th 1963); Williams 402 548 (C.A.8th 1968); Dillane 121 U.S.App.D.C. 354, 350 732 provided: 'When imposes sentence shall requests, forthwith behalf defendant.' provision transferred 32(a)(2). applies going plea guilty, are problem give person will recur. subsequently amendmed defendants, 331, n. 3. Peoples 337 91 (C.A.10th 1964); Boruff 310 918 1962). Brief 6.

Category: 0