Source: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/342/205/
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 02:12:31+00:00

Document:
Held: the District Court erred in determining the factual issues raised by respondent's motion under § 2255 without notice to respondent and without his presence. Pp. 342 U. S. 206-224.
1. A review of the history of § 2255 shows that it was passed at the instance of the Judicial Conference to meet practical problems that had arisen in administering the habeas corpus jurisdiction of the federal courts. Pp. 342 U. S. 210-219.
2. Section 2255 was not intended to impinge upon prisoners' rights of collateral attack upon their convictions; its sole purpose was to minimize the difficulties encountered in habeas corpus hearings by affording the same rights in another and more convenient forum. Pp. 342 U. S. 214-219.
3. In making findings on controverted issues of fact relating to respondent's own knowledge without notice to respondent and without his being present, the District Court did not proceed in conformity with § 2255. Pp. 342 U. S. 219-223.
under § 2255 is to be adequate and effective in this case. Pp. 342 U. S. 219-220.
(b) Issuance of an order to produce the prisoner is auxiliary to the jurisdiction of the trial court over respondent granted in § 2255 itself and invoked by respondent's filing of a motion under that section. Ahrens v. Clark, 335 U. S. 188, distinguished. Pp. 342 U. S. 220-222.
(c) Where, as here, there are substantial issues of fact as to events in which the prisoner participated, the trial court should require his production for a hearing. Pp. 342 U. S. 222-223.
4. The procedure prescribed by § 2255 will be adequate and effective if respondent is present for a hearing in the District Court on remand of this case, and, in the circumstances, this Court does not reach the constitutional questions presented. P. 342 U. S. 223.
5. The Court of Appeals correctly reversed the order of the District Court, but should have remanded the case for a hearing under § 2255 instead of ordering that respondent's motion be dismissed. Pp. 342 U. S. 223-224.
Respondent's motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to vacate his sentence and grant a new trial was denied by the District Court. The Court of Appeals reversed, and ordered the motion dismissed. 187 F.2d 456. This Court granted certiorari. 341 U.S. 930. Vacated and remanded, p. 342 U. S. 224.
We granted certiorari in this case, 341 U.S. 930 (1951), to review the decision that Section 2255 must be considered a nullity, a holding that stands in conflict with cases decided in other circuits. [Footnote 6] We do not reconsider the concurrent findings of both courts below that respondent's motion states grounds to support a collateral attack on his sentence and raises substantial issues of fact calling for an inquiry into their verity.
". . . a prisoner in custody pursuant to the final judgment of a . . . court of criminal jurisdiction may have a judicial inquiry in a court of the United States into the very truth and substance of the causes of his detention, although it may become necessary to look behind and beyond the record of his conviction to a sufficient extent to test the jurisdiction of the . . . court to proceed to judgment against him. . . . [Footnote 10] "
are found to be wholly lacking in merit when compared with the records of the sentencing court. But, since a habeas corpus action must be brought in the district of confinement, [Footnote 15] those records are not readily available to the habeas corpus court.
broader than, coram nobis. The motion remedy broadly covers all situations where the sentence is 'open to collateral attack.' As a remedy, it is intended to be as broad as habeas corpus. [Footnote 25] "
"This section restates, clarifies and simplifies the procedure in the nature of the ancient writ of error coram nobis. It provides an expeditious remedy for correcting erroneous sentences without resort to habeas corpus. It has the approval of the Judicial Conference of the United States. Its principal provisions are incorporated in H.R. 4233, Seventy-ninth Congress (the so-called jurisdictional bill). [Footnote 27]"
(Emphasis supplied.) In requiring a "hearing," the Section "has obvious reference to the tradition of judicial proceedings." [Footnote 30] Respondent, denied an opportunity to be heard, "has lost something indispensable, however convincing the ex parte showing." [Footnote 31] We conclude that the District Court did not proceed in conformity with Section 2255 when it made findings on controverted issues of fact relating to respondent's own knowledge without notice to respondent and without his being present.
The court below also held that the sentencing court could not hold the required hearing, because it was without power to order the presence of a prisoner confined in another district. This want of power was thought to follow from our decision in Ahrens v. Clark, 335 U. S. 188 (1948), where we held that the phrase "within their respective jurisdictions" in the habeas corpus statute [Footnote 32] required the presence of the prisoner within the territorial jurisdiction of the District Court as a prerequisite to his filing an application for habeas corpus. This is not a habeas corpus proceeding. The sentencing court in the Southern District of California would not be issuing an original writ of habeas corpus to secure respondent's presence from another district. Issuance of an order to produce the prisoner is auxiliary to the jurisdiction of the trial court over respondent granted in Section 2255 itself and invoked by respondent's filing of a motion under that Section.
The existence of power to produce the prisoner does not, of course, mean that he should be automatically produced in every Section 2255 proceeding. This is in accord with procedure in habeas corpus actions. [Footnote 38] Unlike the criminal trial, where the guilt of the defendant is in issue and his presence is required by the Sixth Amendment, a proceeding under Section 2255 is an independent and collateral inquiry into the validity of the conviction.
Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U. S. 458, 304 U. S. 466 (1938) (federal prisoner); Frank v. Mangum, 1915, 237 U. S. 309, 237 U. S. 330-331 (state prisoner).
During 1936 and 1937, an annual average of 310 applications for habeas corpus were filed in the District Courts and an annual average of 22 prisoners were released. By 1943, 1944, and 1945, however, the annual average of filings reached 845, although an average of only 26 prisoners were released per year. Figures from tables submitted to the Chairmen of the House and Senate Judiciary committees. See pp. 342 U. S. 215-216, infra.
Ahrens v. Clark, 335 U. S. 188.
Nor can the factual issues be heard before a commissioner. Holiday v. Johnston, 313 U. S. 342.
See Morgan v. United States, 298 U. S. 468, 298 U. S. 480 (1936).
Snyder v. Massachusetts, 291 U. S. 97, 291 U. S. 116 (1934).
See Adams v. United States ex rel. McCann, 317 U. S. 269, 317 U. S. 272-273 (1942).
"ad prosequendum, testificandum, deliberandum, etc., which issue when it is necessary to remove a prisoner, in order to prosecute or bear testimony in any court, or to be tried in the proper jurisdiction wherein the fact was committed."
3 Blackstone's Commentaries 129-130. See Ex parte Bollman, 4 Cranch 75, 8 U. S. 97-98 (1807).
Walker v. Johnston, supra, at 312 U. S. 284. According to the Reviser's Note, 28 U.S.C. (Supp. IV) § 2243, governing the requirements for presence of a prisoner in habeas corpus actions, was drafted to conform with the practice described in the Walker case.
If Section 2255 had not expressly required that the extraordinary remedy of habeas corpus be withheld pending resort to established procedures providing the same relief, the same result would have followed under our decisions. Stack v. Boyle, 342 U. S. 1, 342 U. S. 6-7 (1951); Johnson v. Hoy, 227 U. S. 245 (1913); Ex parte Royall, 117 U. S. 241 (1886).
Alma Motor Co. v. Timken-Detroit Axle Co., 329 U. S. 129 (1946); Ashwander v. Tennessee Valley Authority, 297 U. S. 288, 297 U. S. 347 (1936) (Brandeis, J., concurring).
Rescue Army v. Municipal Court, 331 U. S. 549, 331 U. S. 568-569 (1947); Ashwander v. Tennessee Valley Authority, note 41 supra, at 297 U. S. 346-347, and cases cited therein.

References: § 2255
 § 2255
 § 2255
 § 2255
 § 2255
 v. 
 § 2255
 § 2255
 § 2255
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 2243
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.