Document: 373 U.S. 334 83 S.Ct. 1236 10 L.Ed.2d 383 Albert ANDREWS, Petitioner,v.UNITED STATES. Robert L. DONOVAN, Petitioner, v. UNITED Nos. 491 and 494. Argued March 25 26, 1963. Decided May 20, E. Barrett Prettyman, Jr., Washington, D.C., for petitioners. Wayne G. Barnett, respondent. Mr. Justice STEWART delivered the opinion of Court. 1 The two petitioners a co-defendant were convicted in Federal District Court upon three-court indictment charging that they had (1) assaulted Post Office employee with intent to rob violation 18 U.S.C. § 2114, (2) put life jeopardy by use dangerous weapon (3) conspired together violate aforesaid statute 371. district judge sentenced each defendant concurrent prison terms years on Count 2 five 3.1 None defendants was asked before sentences imposed whether he anything say his own behalf. On appeal, convictions affirmed, but cases remanded resentencing 2, ground trial been error thinking under statute2 without power suspend sentence grant probation count. United States Donovan, Cir., 242 F.2d 61. Upon remand, suspended 25-year which petitioners' co-defendant, resentenced terms. Again, neither petitioner afforded an opportunity speak behalf imposed. Appeals reaffirmed convictions. 252 788. proceedings now us began when Donovan filed motion requesting 'be vacated be resentenced' that, contrary Rule 32(a) Rules Criminal Procedure, no make statement either at time original or reimposed.3 granted ordered returned this resentencing.' Andrews then wrote Judge Murphy, who acted Donovan's motion, pointing out 'the identical circumstances exist me' asking similar relief. Murphy too resentencing. Government notice appeal from both orders, stayed Government's motion. ruled its appellate jurisdiction properly invoked, merits reversed orders Court, holding Court's decisions Hill States, 368 424, 82 468, 7 417 Machibroda 487, 510, 473, sentencing court's failure comply did not constitute collateral 301 376. We certiorari, 371 812, 57, 9 54. 3 As issue decided Appeals, contend there here mere formal requirements as Machibroda, number aggravating accompanied denial right allocution. And opinions petitioners, clearly implied relief would available case where such shown exist. Cf. Taylor, 4 303 165, 167—168. But argue preliminarily these cases. agree have jurisdiction, accordingly, reaching merits, we set aside judgment remand so may accordance orders. court denominated him one made 35 Procedure.4 Anderson's letter mention 35, affidavit opposing request, Assistant Attorney conceded 'factual legal posture application therefore is Donovan.' Both applications docket criminal case. 5 In view treatment motions parties court, consider also hold rulings could appealed because come within limited purview Act.5 This reasoning declined adopt, treating instead having brought provisions 28 2255. 6 correct regarding supra, requiring view, prisoner custody attacking. Morgan, 346 502, 74 247, 98 L.Ed. 248. area law, pointed out, 'adjudication underlying claims hampered reliance titles their documents.' F.2d, 378. See Heflin 358 415, 79 451, 407. Section 2255 explicitly authorizes federal attack collaterally 'was * laws States,' moving 'to vacate, sentence.'6 An action separate proceeding, independent Hayman, 342 205, 72 263, 96 232. Act has applicability proceeding. Instead, itself provides 'An taken appeals order entered final writ habeas corpus.' cannot however, provision take it sought do cases, think clear interlocutory, final. For can perform full service corpus, effecting immediate unconditional discharge prisoner. Sanders 372 1, 1068 (1963). appropriate proceeding utilized provide more flexible remedy. present ever release. What asked, granted, vacation serving might allocution accorded them. Such remedy precisely authorized statute. Under 'move sentence.'7 response expressly 'discharge resentence new appear appropriate.'8 Where, here, what appropriately obvious disposition until resentenced. Parr 351 513, 518, 76 912, 916, 100 1377. 8 long-established rule against piecemeal overriding policy considerations founded repeatedly emphasized See, e.g., DiBella 369 121, 654, 614; Carroll 354 394, 77 1332, 1442; Cobbledick 309 323, 60 540, 84 783. standards finality adhered corpus less exacting. Collins Miller, 364, 40 347, 64 616. There said 'requires appealable should only all parties, whole subject-matter causes involved.' U.S., 370, 349. basic reason interlocutory system particularly apparent us. Until are resentenced, impossible know will able show any colorable claim prejudicial error. may, before, same years' imprisonment; place them probation; some other respect sentences. acts, none controversy adjudication proceedings. aside, Southern New York further consistent opinion. It ordered. 11 Judgment directions. No concluded conviction merged 2. 'Whoever assaults person lawful charge, control, mail matter money property rob, steal, purloin matter, money, robs shall, first offense, imprisoned than ten years; if attempting effect robbery wounds mail, puts weapon, subsequent shall twenty-five years.' 2114. 32(a), pertinent part follows: 'Before imposing afford information mitigation punishment.' 'The illegal time.' 3731. makes Act. question availability mandamus presented Smith, 331 469, 67 1330, 91 1610. Mayer, 235 55, 16, 59 129. paragraph provides: 'A established Congress claiming released Constitution impose sentence, excess maximum otherwise subject attack, move sentence.' note 6, supra. third 'Unless files records conclusively entitled relief, cause thereof served attorney, prompt hearing thereon, determine issues findings fact conclusions law thereto. If finds rendered open infringement constitutional rights render vulnerable vacate appropriate.'

Category: 0