Document: 360 U.S. 252 79 S.Ct. 1164 3 L.Ed.2d 1209 William W. BURNS, Petitioner,v.STATE OF OHIO. No. 581. Argued May 18, 1959. Decided June 15, Mrs. Helen G. Washington, D.C., for petitioner. Messrs. M. Vance, Columbus, Ohio, and Harry C. Schoettmer, Cincinnati, respondent. Mr. Chief Justice WARREN delivered the opinion of Court. 1 The question presented in this case is whether a State may constitutionally require that an indigent defendant criminal care pay filing fee before permitting him to file motion leave appeal one its courts. 2 After trial Ohio 1953, petitioner was convicted burglary sentenced life imprisonment.1 That same year his conviction affirmed without by Court Appeals. Petitioner immediately filed notice Appeals but did nothing further until 1957, when he sought copy earlier Supreme Ohio.2 To these papers attached affidavit poverty which declared 'without sufficient funds with costs Docket Filing Fees cause action.' He also proceed forma pauperis. Clerk refused papers. returned them following letter: 4 'This will serve acknowledge receipt your pauperis, ntic e appeal. 5 'We must advise has determined on numerous occasions docket fee, required Section 1512 General Code Rules Practice Court, takes precedence over any other statute allow pauper's be lieu fee. For reason we cannot honor request. 6 are returning above mentioned you herewith.'3 7 Under Art. IV, § 2, Constitution, appellate jurisdiction many types cases including those 'involving questions arising under constitution United States or state' 'cases felony first obtained.'4 Since Ohio,5 had review petitioner's asking appeal.6 $207 if paid, otherwise proper, considered possibility granted. 8 We granted certiorari 358 919, 292, 238. Subsequently, order entered, 943, 354, 350, expressly limiting grant posed per se petition restate at outset opinion.8 9 State's commendable frankness simplified issues. If acknowledged clerk's letter 'in reality effect' judgment Only recently, court occasion comment function clerk words: 10 'It duty court, absence instructions from contrary, accept paper him, provided such not scurrilous obscene, properly prepared accompanied requisite fee.'9 11 In companion case, observed 'acts as carrying out instructions.'10 represented been instructed fees deviated practice respect. Moreover, asserted it impossible action all paying advance. There no showing have modified rescinded way sanctioned well-publicized procedure applications, exception, above-quoted form letter. This delegation matter involving discretion clearly sufficies make final Ohio's highest 28 U.S.C. 1257, U.S.C.A. 1257. 12 Although admits truth fact' pauper, presses several arguments claims distinguish Griffin v. People Illinois, 351 12, 76 585, 100 L.Ed. 891, justify practice. First, argues received while Griffin, Illinois left judicial conviction. distinction difference for, holds, once chooses establish cases, foreclose indigents access phase because their poverty. pages 22, 590, 592. principle less applicable where afforded appellant effectively foreclosed second solely indigency. 13 proceeded upon assumption right, page 13, 588, seeks ground discretion. But argument misses crucial significance Griffin. who consider merits application interpreted rules practice, denied opportunity. rational basis assuming indigents' motions meritorious than defendants. Indigents must, therefore, opportunities invoke Ohio. 14 some ways more disastrou fr om defendant's point view situation least might raised were apparent bare record though errors could raised. Here, completely barred obtaining imposition financial barriers restricting availability defendants place our heritage Equal Law. 15 What said well here: confident provide corrective meet problem lays bare.' 20, 591.11 16 below vacated remanded inconsistent opinion. It so ordered. 17 Judgment direction. 18 STEWART took part consideration decision case. 19 FRANKFURTER, whom HARLAN joins, dissenting. 20 special obligation strictly observe limits jurisdiction. No how tempting particular situation, should indulge disregard bounds Congress defined power review. time enough enforce constitutional right be, now finds possess duly determination here, there ample modes open assertion claim adjudication. 21 litigation originating state can come into operation only reviewed State. prerequisite ingredient requirement 'Cases' 'Controversies' alone 'The Power shall extend.' U.S.Const. III, 2. 'final judgment' made very Act established 1789. September 24, 1789, 25, Stat. 85, 'Close observance limitation regard strangling technicality.' Republic Natural Gas Co. Oklahoma, 334 62, 67, 68 972, 976, 92 1212. Such undeviating constitutional, legislative command binding respected exception qualification day. 22 requisites met what deem exercise court's See Tyler Judges, 179 405, 206, 45 252; Doremus Board Education, 342 429, 72 394, 96 475. Nor consent parties overleap jurisdictional limitations Court's being. Litigants give Constitution withheld. Mansfield, & L.M.R. Swan, 111 379, 382, 510, 511, 462. President himself secure legal except arises course adjudication controversy, even hou gh asks needed help great national emergency. Washington's 33 Writings Washington (Fitzpatrick ed. 1940) 15—19, 28, correspondence between Secretary Thomas Jefferson Jay, Correspondence Public Papers John Jay (Johnston 1891) 486—489. 23 As importance interrogator confer render advisory opinions, compassionate endow final. One's sympathy, however deep, dispense precondition exercising power. history teaches lesson important any, regretful consequences straying off clear path reach desired result. yielding temptation cut corners command. Burns paths assert what, forsooth, us failure accord besides indifference bound. Specifically, four obvious remedies securing ascertainment enforcement having treat judgment. although caption would indicate fact refusal twenty-dollar paid. asked appeal, nor itself refuse do so. decisions ex rel. Dawson Roberts, 165 St. 341, 135 N.E.2d 409, Wanamaker Miller, 164 174 176, 128 108 110 mandamus sub nom. 350 881, 142, 777, demonstrate conclusively retained ultimate determine permitted filed. remotest indication customary indigence, brought attention writing acting specific behest 24 (1) direct addressed terms judges applications informally expressed letters frequently accepted here judgments assume transmitted acted it. merely appropriate about functioning confidently based records supra. (Papers connection does instruct petitions filing.) yield courts like situations yielded since 891. event, denial Burns' entertain constitute here. 25 (2) Ever 81, amended, 1651, issue protection avoid frustration eerc ise anticipatory bringing directly due course. 26 (3) Civil Rights Act, R.S. 1979, 42 1983, Burns, others allegedly rights color State, and, incidentally, heavy damages rights. Lane Wilson, 307 268, 59 872, 83 1281. 27 (4) claim, essence, unlawful detention Fourteenth Amendment. foundation habeas corpus proceeding District Johnson Zerbst, 304 458, 58 1019, 82 1461. sure, recognized proceedings, released conditionally entertaining incapable meeting costs. contingent nature release impair corpus. Chin Yow States, 208 8, 201, 52 369. Thus, urged necessity compels statutes forbid—adjudication rejected court. Adherence dictates laws govern jurisdiction, result postponement rights, best assurance vindication justice law through dismiss writ sertiorari inasmuch larceny term seven years served concurrently sentence. Despite passage timely. Grisafulli, 87, 645. obviously referred VII XVII. (Rev.Code 2503.17): supreme charge collect fees: '(A) each entered minute book, original actions proceedings * twenty dollars. '(B) filling assignments error allowance five 'Such paid party invoking docketed taxed recovered party, succeeds, unless directs.' Rule VII: 'Section 1. Felony Cases. sought, along Appeals, payment 2503.17, Revised Code. 4. Appeal Right. misdemeanor, shows involves debatable state, transcript Code.' XVII: fixed Code, *' Rev.Code §§ 2953-02, 2953.08, implement provision. 2907.09, 1.06, 1.05. stated taken condition allowed.' stated, among contentions, conflicted 'Constitutional Guarantees Amendment (14) States; Article I, Ohio.' claiming However, consistently characterized requires leave, n. 3, petitioner, 'Whether prosecution Burglary, Due Process Clause, And Protection violated aforementioned unable costs.' 177, 110. 174, 175, 108, 109. Shortly after supra, promulgated 65—1, S.H.A. ch. 110, 101.65—1, provides person imprisonment means obtain trial' receive 'necessary present fully recited petition.

Category: 1