Document: 361 U.S. 220 80 S.Ct. 282 4 L.Ed.2d 259 UNITED STATES, Petitioner,v.Troyit ROBINSON et al. No. 16. Argued Dec. 8, 1959. Decided Jan. 11, 1960. Miss Beatrice Rosenberg, Washington, D.C., for petitioner. Mr. I. William Stempil, respondents. Justice WHITTAKER delivered the opinion of Court. 1 Respondents were indicted murder in District Court Columbia, and upon a trial found guilty by jury lesser included offense manslaughter. After their motions new considered denied, court entered judgment conviction on May 7, 1958. Twenty-one days thereafter, 28, respondents separately filed notices appeal. On same day they each asked, granted Court, leave to prosecute appeals forma pauperis. June 30, Government moved Appeals dismiss respondents' want jurisdiction, because appeal not within 10 after entry judgment. In opposition motion, affidavits respondent Travit Robinson, counsel both respondents, Appeals. They tended show that late filing was due misunderstanding as whether be themselves or counsel.1 2 The Appeals, one judge dissenting, held appeal, although 11 expiration time prescribed Rule 37(a)(2) Federal Rules Criminal Procedure, 18 U.S.C.A.,2 sufficient confer jurisdiction if actually had found, under 45(b), failure file 'was result excusable neglect.' Being unable determine from record so October 2, remanded 'for supplementation record' score, meanwhile holding abeyance Government's motion dismiss. 'ordered reflect allowed act englect 45(b) Procedure.' November 5, en banc, two judges denied petition rehearing, 104 U.S.App.D.C. 200, 260 F.2d 718. Because importance question proper uniform administration we certiorari. 358 940, 79 347, 3 348. single presented is notice criminal case confers proceeding has neglect. There being no dispute about fact 10-day period 37(a)(2),3 answer depends interpretation 45(b). It provides: 5 'Enlargement. When an required done at specified time, cause shown may any its discretion (1) with without notice, order enlarged application therefor made before originally extended previous (2) permit neglect; but enlarge taking action 33, 34 35, except otherwise provided those rules, appeal.' 6 interpreting Rule, took view that, (104 419) 'the authority grant greater than ten it may, however, satisfied note excusable, filing.' thought there 'ample justification reason different treatment pre-expiration post-expiration applications'; defendant 'can make timely extension he can readily less effort itself.' But if, some amounting legally 'excusable neglect' party fails take during rule seems plainly allow him doing would 'enlarge' rather only 'permit done' period. This conclusion has, least, enough surface plausibility require detailed examination language, judicial interpretations, history related Procedure. 7 face, appears quite plain clear. specifically says * We think recognize Giving words meaning, seem direct conflict Rule. No cited support conclusion, nor supporting here. insists, correctly, supports Appeals' conclusion. Every other decision which have been cited, holds mandatory jurisdictional.4 8 significant prohibits enlarging but, language sentence, also enlargement Rules. That is: '* If, held, delayed appeal—found resulted neglect'—is consistently follow like finding, 33,5 arrest 34,6 reduction sentence 35,7 months even years—after periods 9 contrary Rules, decisions this United States v. Smith, 331 469, 67 1330, 91 L.Ed. 1610, power sua sponte 33 limited fixed There, here, argued 'that literal places five-day limit making (for trial), does later (a trial) *.' U.S., page 473, 1332. rejected contention such 'lingers indefinitely,' pointed out abolishing limitation based Term, did substitute indefiniteness, precise times courts must confined. 474, 1333. See Marion States, Cir., 171 185; Drown 198 999. apply respect 34. Similarly, reduce 35 60-day regardless excuse. ex rel. Quinn Hunter, 162 644. Cf. Affronti 350 79, 76 171, 100 62. right cases federal relatively recent origin. Carroll 354 394, 400, 77 1332, 1336, 1442. By Act February 24, 1933, 47 Stat. 904 (now U.S.C. § 3772) U.S.C.A. 3772, Congress first gave promulgate rules regulating manner cases. One principal purposes eliminate delays appeals. H.R.Rep. 2047, 72d Cong., 2d Sess., accompany S. 4020. promulgated 13 effective September 1, 1934. 292 661 670. III 5-day conviction. uniformly jurisdictional, taken appear always dismissed excuse.8 From review, nothing interpretations predecessor, turn, then, see court's source. 12 Under 29, 1940, 54 688, amended 3771, 3771), authorized prescribe Procedure including verdict, become passive acceptance Congress. (the 904—now 3772), aid advisory committee, 32 through 39 327 825, remaining became What are now underwent number draft changes adoption. preliminary changed more significance stated, effect, when imposes defendant, represented appointed counsel, shall ask wishes and, answers affirmative, clerk forthwith prepare, file, serve behalf extend appeal.'9 (Emphasis added.) conformity proposal, what 45(b)10 stated: 37(a)(2).' provision contained First Preliminary Draft eliminated Second Draft11 never reappeared. almost conclusively deliberate intention more. prototype Civil 28 U.S.C.A.12 original prepared, limiting clause 6(b) 59, stated subdivision (c) thereof, law.' jurisdictional could excuse.13 presumed Advisory Committee Justices aware construction received prepared adopted 14 jurisdictional. shows consideration given matter vesting further consideration, idea deliberately abandoned. follows words, history, fail support, oppose, therefore cannot stand. 15 powerful policy arguments against flexibility indeed evident. question, involving, does, many weighty conflicting considerations, resolved rule-making process decision. Isthmian S.S. Co., 359 314, 857, 845. process, ever finding neglect, reasonable definite might do prescribed; otherwise, below, might—almost surely would—be indefinitely delayed. Certainly possibility unnecessarily14 produce intolerable uncertainty confusion. Whatever resolution involved, beyond resolve it. 16 Reversed. 17 BLACK DOUGLAS dissent, share Judge Bazelon, 201, 718, 719, passed, 'enlargement' narrow sense uses word. Robinson's affidavit was, essence, follows: sentencing, I advised my attorney going case. told (what) inmates Jail (had me) knew (I) necessary paper, thinking it, while (understand) misunderstood find wrong impression wanted do.' substantially conformed recited: 'I (file appeal) me, (and also) neglected differentiate appealing type (from applying civil case.' All references unless stated. Fed.Rules Crim.Proc. 'Time Taking Appeal. An appealed from, denying motion. his requests, prepare defendant. *' See, e.g., Martin 263 516; Bryant 261 229; Isabella, 251 F.id 223; Banks 240 302; Wagner 513; Kirksey 94 393, 219 499; Brant 210 470; McIntosh 204 545; Swihart 169 808; Froehlich, 166 84. thus below itself recognized enforced supra, Richards 89 354, 356, 192 602, 604, 30 A.L.R.2d 880. Crim.Proc., pertinent part, A ground newly discovered evidence years final judgment, pending remand grounds verdict fix period.' 'The indictment information charge charged. determination guilt correct illegal time. 60 imposed, receipt mandate issued affirmance dismissal Supreme writ certiorari.' Nix 131 857; Infusino, 617; Miller 343; Tousey, 101 892; O'Gwin 90 494; Burr 86 502; Fewox 699. And compare Coy 316 342, 62 1137, 1517, Hark, 320 531, 533, 64 359, 360, 88 290. Draft, Notes Forms, Prepared Printing Office, 1943, Appeal then 35(a)(2), p. 152. treated 41(b). Id., 179. proposed adaptation all proceedings Civ.Proc., (Time).' 180. 1944, 39(a)(2), 135. (Rule 45), state, substance Drug Co. Helvering, 108 637; Alexander Special School Booneville, 132 355; Tinkoff West Publishing 138 607; Lamb Shasta Oil 149 729; Deposit Insurance Corporation Congregation Poile Tzedeck, 159 163. allowance unnecessary accomplishment substantial justice, collateral remedies available redress denial basic rights. Examples are: becomes final; entertain attack vacate, set aside 2255, 2255; way error coram nobis.

Category: 0