Document: 391 U.S. 54 88 S.Ct. 1549 20 L.Ed.2d 426 C. PEYTON, Superintendent of the Virginia State Penitentiary, Petitioner,v.Robert Elmer ROWE et al. No. 802. Argued March 27, 1968. Decided May 20, Reno S. Harp, III, Richmond, Va., for petitioner. John J. Kirby, Jr., Charlottesville, respondents, pro hac vice, by special leave Court. Mr. Chief Justice WARREN delivered opinion 1 This case concerns scope 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3), which specifies that United States District Courts may issue writs habeas corpus on behalf prisoners who are 'in custody in violation Constitution * States.' The question presented is whether a district court entertain petition writ from prisoner incarcerated under consecutive sentences claims sentence he scheduled to serve future invalid because deprivation rights guaranteed Constitution. Court considered this McNally v. Hill, 293 131, 55 24, 79 L.Ed. 238 (1934), and held statute does not authorize attacks upon sentences. We granted certiorari re-examine McNally. 389 1035, 782, 19 822 (1968). conclude decision was compelled neither nor history today it represents an indefensible barrier prompt adjudication constitutional federal courts. 2 Respondents, Robert Rowe Clyde Thacker, serving prison terms Penitentiary. In June 1963 sentenced 30 years' imprisonment after jury found him guilty rape. Subsequently, pleaded indictment charging with felonious abduction intent defile arising same events had led rape conviction.1 He 20-year term conviction run consecutively 30-year sentence. After exhausting state remedies,2 petitioned Western Virginia. did attack conviction, but alleged constitutionally defective been subjected doubt jeopardy, his plea involuntary, failed offense inadequately represented trial counsel. Without reaching merits Rowe's claims, denied relief. Applying McNally, then detained Since claim invalid, custody' unconstitutionally imposed within meaning 2241. concluded could challenge until confined conviction. That time would arrive 1993.3 3 Thacker's 2241 Eastern met similar fate. imprisoned number totaling more than 60 years. asserted three five-year housebreaking 1953 were inadequate representation counsel at entered pleas guilty.4 Finding these premature begun them, dismissed 'without prejudice reapplication proper time.' Under 'proper time' will be 1994 when Thacker commences service first challenges.5 4 Appeals Fourth Circuit consolidated two cases. hearing en banc, reversed remanded them Courts. 383 F.2d 709 (1967). Recognizing correctly applied declined adhere decision. Writing unanimous court, Judge Haynsworth reasoned no longer follow view 'doctrinaire approach' based 'old jurisdictional concept' 'thoroughly rejected Supreme recent cases.'6 Id., 714. complete agreement conclusion considerations underlying it. 5 procedural device subjecting executive,7 judicial,8 or private9 restraints liberty judicial scrutiny. Where available, assures among other things require jailer justify detention law.10 England where originated States, high purpose has made both symbol guardian individual liberty. Blackstone, Commentaries *131—138; see Ex parte Bollman, Cranch 75, 554 (1807); Lange, 18 Wall. 163, 21 872 (1874); Moore Dempsey, 261 86, 43 265, 67 543 (1923); Johnson Zerbst, 304 458, 58 1019, 82 1461 (1938); Brown Allen, 344 443, 73 397, 97 469 (1953); Fay Noia, 372 391, 83 822, 9 837 (1963). 6 jurisdiction courts enumerated Like predecessor controlled McNally,11 provides issuance persons custody.' But attempt define 'habeas corpus' 'custody.' Confronted fact, '(t)o ascertain its appropriate use courts, recourse must common law decisions interpreting applying common-law principles *.' U.S., 136, 26. need look very far discover principal characteristics as developed even before First, though utilized largely secure admission bail discharge prisoners,12 major office since Civil War provide post-conviction relief.13 Second, partial codifications legislation country have contained specific detailed provisions requiring validity challenged restraint. See compare Habeas Corpus Act 1679, 31 Car. 2, c. 2; February 5, 1867, 28, 14 Stat. 385; 2243. Third, least tentatively Frank Mangum, 237 309, 35 582, 59 969 (1915), clearly S.Ct.265, 65 (1923), recognized authorized behind bare record proceeding conduct factual determine deprivations rights14—a procedure reached full flowering (1938). Thus, decided, substantially afford well legal issues. Keeping purposes mind, we turn consideration holding reasons compel us overrule 7 A counts offenses Motor Vehicle Theft (now §§ 2312—2313).15 years count four each second third counts, concurrently consecutively. application corpus, claimed count. convictions counts. When filed lower relief merits. affirmed ground, count—and therefore sentence—his premature: 8 '(W)ithout restraint unlawful, used. cannot cause makes subject inquiry.' 138, 27. effect disposition ameliorated somewhat Court's suggestion might seek another route. 140, 131. also Holiday Johnston, 313 342, 349, 61 1015, 85 1392 (1941). cf. Hull, 312 546, 640, 1034 Moreover, McNally's directed face indictment. Therefore, postponement probably resulted loss crucial evidence. harshness rule delay determination decades becomes obvious cases Thacker. Their exemplify manner cuts against prior subsequent development 10 Both allege they so assistance Sixth Fourteenth Amendments. Petitioner concedes that, respondents' allegations entitle plenary hearings Brief 6. Yet, current schedules confinement, argued, obtain 1990. By time, dimmed memories death witnesses bound render difficult impossible testimony disputed issues fact. Of course meritorious resulting kind imposes limited situations involving ineffective To name few examples, determinations often dispositive coerced confession, e.g., Reck Pate, 367 433, 81 1541, 948 (1961), Leyra Denno, 347 556, 74 716, 98 (1954); lack competency stand trial, Pate Robinson, 375, 86 836, 15 815 (1966); denial fair Sheppard Maxwell, 384 333, 1507, 16 600 (1966). Postponement such can harm lessens probability final do substantial justice.16 As observed: 11 'Years hence, prisoner, least, expected give testimonial support petition, if false Commonwealth unable refute unavailability records responsible officials participants trial. greater lapse unlikely reprosecute retrials necessary. It great interest matters determined soon possible there greatest likelihood truth matter established.'17 F.2d, 715. 12 Clearly, extent postpones undermines character instrument resolving fact adequately original proceedings. extent, supra, inconsistent reaffirmed Moore. E.g., 13 odds respect. noted above, aim swift review unlawful Calendar congestion, federalism, see, 415—420, 822; Royall, 117 241, 29 868 (1886), exigencies appellate account unavoidable delays processing criminal prematurity many instances extends without practical justification entitled release remain confinement. eventually establish obtained If do, day those while their properly enjoyed free men. Common sense dictages seeking remedies should able earliest practicable time. foregoing analysis demonstrates corpus. arriving decision, relied part unnecessarily narrow interpretation statute. Standing alone, limitation 2241(c)(3)—that '(t)he shall extend unless (h)e Constitution'—is ambiguity. However, understanding 'custody' comprehends status entire duration imprisonment. Practically speaking, 50 years, aggregate 3- For parole eligibility, Va.Code Ann. 53 251 (1967); n. 3, supra. Nothing militates views being them. interpretation, Constitution' any result rights. approach consistent canon construction remedial statutes liberally construed. eliminates inconsistencies between practice flow holding. Meaningful conducted grow stale, one class opportunity having spend unwarranted months prison. find unpersuasive arguments narrower requirement. No cited clear authority doctrine.18 fill gap, 1789 line reasoning whose unexamined premise doubtful subsequently rejected. historical conceptual bases revealed observation '(d)iligent search English authorities digests disclose sought used means securing which, prisoner's favor, immediate release.' 137—138, thought absence eighteenth century precedent demonstrated relief, reliance seems misplaced. light judges power impose cumulative punishment felony cases,19 apparently assume misdemeanor 1769,20 all surprising research uncover pre-1789 analogy event, end 1789. What said context Jones Cunningham, 371 236, 373, 285 (1963), equally applicable here. '(The writ) now never static, narrow, formalistic remedy; grown achieve grand purpose—the protection individuals erosion right wrongful liberty.' 243, 377. 17 excursion into issued only adjudicate entitlement 'immediate release' unnecessary. Though petitioner meet requirements statute, Walker Wainwright, 390 335, 962, 1215 (1968), rested physical available proceeding. deny fashion release. 1874, facts dispose summarily, 'as justice require.' Rev.Stat. 761 (1874), superseded Consistently command, first-sentence revoked released prevailed, (1941); person paroled still conditions, supra; succeeded. Pridgeon, 153 48, 63—64, 746, 38 631 (1894). notion remedy finds decisions. hold 2241(c)(3).21 statutory language Affirmed. initial double jeopardy overruled court. Appeals. Virginia's version rule. Peyton Williams, 206 Va. 595, 145 S.Ed.2d 147 (1965). Subsequent below, Legislature enacted effective 1968, abolish State. 17, infra. receives credit 'good time,' expire 1982. sentences, eligible 1974. relieved term, 1970. 53—251 These originally suspended, suspension 1956. receive good-time credit, commence 2009. 1976. present receded 2241(c)(3) permits affects affect eligibility. Williams Peyton, 216 (C.A.4th Cir. 1967); Martin Virginia, 349 781 1965). argument invalidated. 134, 24. Martin, departure reading Darnel's Case ('Five Knights' Case') How.St.Tr. (K.B. 1627); Milligan, 281 (1866). proceedings summarized D. Meador, Magna Carta 13—16 Bushel's Case, Jones, T. 13, 84 Eng.Rep. 1123 (K.B.); Rex v Clarkson, Strange 444, 93 625 1721); Ford Ford, 187, 273, 240 (1962). indignation aroused 7, enactment 1627 Petition Right, 1, condemned return reciting 'speciale mandatum Domini Regis' insufficient 'the land.' W. Church, Treatise Writ 8—9 (2d ed. 1893). 385, 'any restrained her constitution, treaty 753 (1874). collection discussion Judiciary 1953, G. Longsdorf, Federal Acts Original Amended, F.R.D. 407 (1953). celebrated concerned exclusively providing efficacious pretrial 21—32, 48—58 explained recognition certain sentencing defects invalidate over crime defendant, some safeguards embodied Bill Rights virtue Due Process Clause Amendment, requirement exhaust (1886); 2254; substituted 'for limit commonlaw searching investigation, applicant put oath set forth respecting causes detention, determining actual facts, 'dispose party require." 330—331, 588. Moore, pervading influence mob appellants 92, 265. Because authorities, clause (1874) petitions States. claiming incarceration violated Darr Burford, 339 200, 203, 70 587, 94 (1950). Even resolution turns evidence, destruction relevant document failure transcribe period Norvell Illinois, 373 420, 1366, 456 mean relegated limbo determined. previously followed doctrine reject ex rel. Stevens Myers, 419 Pa. 213 A.2d 613 (1965); Ore.Rev.Stat. 138.510 (1961). Landreth Gladden, Ore. 205, 324 P.2d 475 (1958). California re Chapman, Cal.2d 273 817 (1954). Finally, Court, repudiated Va.S.No. 44, 1968 Sess., amending 8—596 (effective 1968). committee American Bar Association inquiring recommended abandonment calls 'one most frustrating elements practice.' Advisory Committee Sentencing Review, A.B.A. Project Minimum Standards Criminal Justice, Relating Post-Conviction Remedies (Tent.Draft 1967). Swan, 150 637, 225, 37 1207 (1893), suggested prematurity. confinement merely judge allegedly unauthorized fine addition valid term. 653, 225. cases, Morgan Devine, 632, 712, 1153 Spencer, 228 652, 33 709, 57 1010 (1913), applications served portions ultimately illustrate result. Regina Albury, (1951) All E.R. 491 (Crim.App.); Stephen, History Law 291—292 (1883). Wilkes Rex, Bro.P.C. 360, 244 (H.L. 1769). intimate claims.

Category: 0