Source: https://m.openjurist.org/368/us/139
Timestamp: 2020-08-04 11:45:37
Document Index: 507039309

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 2255', '§ 2255', '§ 2255', '§ 2255', '§ 2255', '§ 2255', '§ 2255']

368 US 139 Hodges v. United States | OpenJurist
368 U.S. 139 - Hodges v. United States
368 US 139 Hodges v. United States
82 S.Ct. 235
7 L.Ed.2d 184
John E. HODGES, Petitioner,
Quinn O'Connell, Washington, D.C., for petitioner.
We brought this case here upon the understanding that the question it presented was whether the District Court should have accorded petitioner a hearing under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255, when it appeared that no appeal had been perfected from the original judgment of conviction. After a thorough review of the full record, made possible after the case was briefed and argued on the merits, we have concluded that the petition for certiorari was improvidently granted. The record shows that the District Court did in fact conduct a hearing upon the petitioner's § 2255 motion, 156 F.Supp. 313, but that the minutes of such hearing have been lost. Whether or not that hearing was adequate need not, however, be determined, for we are satisfied from the record, which includes the trial transcript, that in any event this was a case where no hearing was required under the statute, because 'the files and records of the case conclusively show' that the petitioner was entitled to no relief. Therefore, and necessarily without approving or disapproving the view of the Court of Appeals on what now appears an extraneous issue, 108 U.S.App.D.C. 375, 282 F.2d 858, we dismiss the writ as improvidently granted. It is so ordered.
The hearing which the District Court gave petitioner under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255, is not dispositive of the case. That hearing was held October 25, 1957. The issue with which the Court of Appeals in the present case was concerned was presented in two affidavits, one by petitioner dated August 3, 1959, and the other by petitioner's lawyers dated July 31, 1959. Petitioner swears he did not know that he had only 10 days to appeal. Petitioner's lawyers swear, 'We were present at the time that sentence was imposed. Immediately after sentence was imposed, John Hodges was removed from the courtroom by the U. S. Marshal and we did not have an opportunity to talk to him.' They also state that they advised petitioner's wife that she should have him prosecute an appeal. Petitioner says that when his wife mentioned an appeal, the 10-day period had passed. No one gave petitioner timely notice of his right to appeal.*
'The allowance of an appeal months or years after expiration of the prescribed time seems unnecessary for the accomplishment of substantial justice, for there are a number of collateral remedies available to redress denial of basic rights. Examples are: The power of a District Court under Rule 35 to correct an illegal sentence at any time, and to reduce a sentence within 60 days after the judgment of conviction becomes final; the power of a District Court to entertain a collateral attack upon a judgment of conviction and to vacate, set aside or correct the sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255; and proceedings by way of writ of error coram nobis.' Id., 361 U.S. at 230, note 14, 80 S.Ct. at 288.