Document: 396 U.S. 107 90 S.Ct. 312 24 L.Ed.2d 295 James CONWAY, Petitioner,v.CALIFORNIA ADULT AUTHORITY et al. No. 40. Argued Nov. 12, 1969. Decided Dec. 8, Rehearing Denied Jan. 1970. See 1030, 544. Charles S. Ralston, San Francisco, Cal., for petitioner. Arlo E. Smith, respondents. PER CURIAM. 1 The petition habeas corpus in this case, which was filed the District Court Northern of California and prepared by petitioner pro se, attacked constitutionality petitioner's confinement state prison system pursuant to Indeterminate Sentence Law.1 Petitioner recited that he convicted 1952 on two counts first-degree robbery given consecutive sentences not less than five years each, with no maximum prescribed law. law provides where term is set, punishment shall be life imprisonment subject power Adult Authority 'determine redetermine' length time a prisoner required serve. Cal.Penal Code §§ 671 (1955), 1168, 3020 (1956). 2 asserted June 1961 appeared before parole consideration, as had done yearly basis during his confinement. According petitioner, appearance members evinced an intention extend beyond March 1962, date been tentatively set discharge, solely because refused admit guilt.2 Shortly after appearance, rescinded its earlier action scheduling release 1962; new fixed, has remained custody continuously since time. 3 stated flatly routine consideration; claimed free from infractions rules at least year prior appearance. He further declared reason redetermination sentence, received notice or hearing concerning any possible such action. In conclusion, that, 'obviously, only coerce plead guilty challenge conviction being released discharge.' 4 Respondents response Court. That court denied writ without hearing, brief order stating federal questions presented. Appeals Ninth Circuit certificate probable cause appeal reasons expressed Court, applied certiorari. On facts we granted certiorari consider contention privilege against compulsory self-incrimination infringed authorities. 393 1062, 89 720, 21 705 (1969). 5 merits, respondents have brought our attention series documents, whose accuracy way drawn into question cast detention light wholly different shed These documents show December 1960 Conway served charging him violation informing might result refixing term; attended found fighting another sentenced three days isolation, recommendation postponed until 1961. Following notes, fixing determinate thereby reinstating operation initial indeterminate sentence. Thus, it now appears documentary evidence actual simply do present issue us. 6 imposition revealed late stage seems policy Attorney General California, explained Respondents' brief, make petitions prisoners unless requests response, example, so say, issuing why should granted. Since eventuated instance also failed flush problem stage,3 both attorney appointed represent here unwittingly placed unfortunate posture addressing situation does exist. 7 affairs decline adjudicate case. Were pass upon purely artificial hypothetical tendered would effect rendering advisory opinion but lending ourselves unjustifiable intrusion Accordingly, dismissed improvidently 8 It ordered. 9 Writ dismissed. § 1168 (1956) provisions there listed. discussion turned what planned if released. When expected go 'to Bakersfield,' one member responded: 'But you got trouble. What are planning there?' declared, 'I'm going fight my case,' prompting ask whether admitted Authority, earlier, guilty. After previous admission, raised—assertedly first time—the possibility extending term. merely locked horns allegations filed, drawing Court's subsequently merits.

Category: 8