Document: 334 U.S. 672 68 S.Ct. 1270 92 L.Ed. 1647 WADEv.MAYO. No. 40. Submitted March 9, 1948. Decided June 14, [Syllabus from pages 672-674 intentionally omitted] Mr. E. M. Baynes, of West Palm Beach, Fla., for petitioner. J. Tom Watson and Sumter Leitner, both Tallahassee, respondent. Justice MURPHY delivered the opinion Court. 1 This case centers on two issues: (1) whether it was proper a federal district court to entertain habeas corpus petition filed by state prisoner who, having secured ruling highest his constitutional claim, had failed seek writ certiorari in this Court; (2) correctly held that been deprived right counsel at trial non-capital offense. 2 On February 19, 1945, petitioner Wade arrested Beach County, Florida, upon charge breaking entering. He jail until brought before jury Criminal Court Record County. Just started, he asked judge appoint represent him, claiming financially impossible employ one himself. The refused request proceeded. juryr eturned verdict guilty same day immediately sentenced serve five years penitentiary. 3 then obtained aid counsel. 16, days after conviction, Circuit claimed refusal denial due process law guaranteed him Fourteenth Amendment Constitution United States. issued, hearing had, thereupon granted motion state's attorney quash writ. action taken authority decisions Supreme Florida holding under has no duty accused case. v. State, 142 Fla. 218, 194 So. 640; Johnson 148 510, 4 So.2d 671. Wade's appealed decision Florida. In latter court, Attorney General dismiss appeal as frivolous. Two points were emphasized motion: not conviction or even new trial; quashed cases cited its order. Court, consideration motion, dismissed appeal. No written indication given reasons advanced General. date May 1945. attempt made secure 5 Nearly year later, 8, 1946, States District Southern alleged law. And further stated point raised way because belief plain 'has power reversal defendants represented counsel, reason obtain fair trial, except capital cases, is case.' Such an would have useless avail. But pointed out order exhaust all remedies courts applying pursued through courts. 6 17, 1946. Both testified events surrounding After testimony argument concluded circumstances contrary Amendment, thereby rendering void judgment commitment which held. Fifth Appeals reversed, did require appointment unless so required. 158 F.2d 614. 7 We certiorari. 331 801, 67 1529, 91 1825. submitted us briefs, we ordered restored docket reargument points: '(1) propriety exercise jurisdiction when appears record, dismissal corpus, availed himself remedy apparently open though now barred limitation * failure make objection proceeding affects above problem.' 8 our view, proceed determination merits claim. crucial exhausted alternative routes securing answer objection. It defendant who denied may attack constitutionality such treatment either direct method collateral corpus. Since chose done could be claim fact might received does detract completeness with disposed exhaustion but several available alternatives necessary. 9 At time appeal, however, raising issue anything clear. specify possible construe only Wade. General's seemed adopted sole ground dismissal. Had situation, entirely different posture. position seeking relief chosen forego opportunity recognition exclusive mode designated 10 doubts availability purpose hand dispelled subsequent Mayo, 264, 28 585. That proceeded pass identical doing, relied disposition stating As makes clear, considered frivolous counter settled Reference other states 'the rule Federal Courts are view those do control Florida.' page 266, 586. 11 Thus announced unambiguously less than half grounded tendered Wade, rather raise issue. contradict construction attribute procedure negatived reasoning later 12 real problem concerning entertaining relates effect following said 'Ordinarily application detained crime will entertained available, including appellate cor ts certiorari, exhausted.' Ex parte Hawk, 321 114, 116, 117, 64 448, 450, 88 572. reexamine statement light facts 13 requirement i sought primarily respect judicial processes administrative necessities judiciary. State bound give full rights cannot assumed they derelict their duty. Only without vindicated properly intervene. Indeed, any visit burden, forcing them supervise countless criminal proceedings deprivations alleged. 14 principle cease rendered ended there longer danger collision between authority. shifts consummation nature extent review exertion point, sense part procedure. invocation growing supremacy necessity giving if so. 15 exhausted, concern appropriate forum pursue choice lies directly instituting original court. Considerations prompt orderly often dictate first where neglected review, relevant determining petition. 16 factors desirable present initially justify hard fast effect, especially volume Court's business. Writs matters grace. Matters discretion frequently result denials merits. thus bearing Where apparent court's judgment, file should prejudice Good administration furthered insistence futile 17 Moreover, flexible counsels against erecting rigid procedural imposing jurisdictional Habeas presently use within recognized whenever necessary prevent unjust illegal deprivation human liberty. Cf. Price Johnston, 1049, 1059. matter otherwise weigh miscarriage justice grant relief. short, refuse codify invoke discretionary powers into absolute o urt's application. prevention undue restraints liberty more important mechanical unrealistic 18 Fear sometimes expressed petitions these rise frequent instances single upsetting state. restrict limit basis discredited fear. Experience demonstrated judges used sparingly negligible number convictions sustained reversed. Statistics compiled Administrative Office show during fiscal 1943, 1944 1945 average 451 each prisoners serving sentences; petitions, per resulted release prisoner. releases constituted 1.3% total filed. figures, lightly exercised See Royall, 117 241, 253, 734, 741, 29 868. 19 instant case, believe well consider conclusive True, dismissal, extremely doubtful, say least, really decided. doubt reasonably certain theory adequate appeared underlie judgment. His accordingly Otherwise left completely remediless, unable being invoking 20 findings gave testimony: 'The heard evidence respective parties petitioner, eighteen old, wholly stranger Room, convicted prior offenses, still inexperienced youth unfamiliar procedure, capable adequately representing admitted Judge presided petitioner's 6, commenced, requested placed here involved constitutes process, 14th Constitution, renders *' 21 out, showed progress (a) advised challenge jurors excuse many six reason, exercise; (b) afforded p portunity, accepted, cross-examine witnesses; (c) took stand own behalf; (d) offered privilege arguing declined, prosecuting attorney. 22 disagree conclusion Its purely factual incapable complicated legal questions. peculiarly province trier facts, based personal observation find clearly erroneous. 23 There some individuals age, ignorance mental capacity themselves prosecution relatively simple nature. incapacity can determined examination individual. present, Amendment. 24 therefore error reversing also assuming non-capatal requires appointment. To type stems statutes. Betts Brady, 316 455, 473, 62 1252, 1261, 86 1595. 25 Reversed. 26 REED, dissenting. 27 Donald day, presiding himself, entering, years' imprisonment. County; 22, writ; quashing ground.1 However, 585, indicated For purposes opinion, I assume bring set examined furnish released custody respondent, remanded sheriff take. reversed lower conclusion, think, 1595, determines prosecutions.2 31 1825; us; November 10, 1947, reargument, directing discuss questions: *; I. question affect effort Or, rephrase problem, well-recognized doctrine remedies? Mooney Holohan, 294 103, 55 340, 79 791, 98 A.L.R. 406. inquiry started considering unanimous handed down January 31, 1944. Hawk leave him. Hawk's understood designed direction advise applications person confined cinviction.3 One rules prescribed governs consideration. 30 exhausted. Tinsley Anderson, 171 101, 104, 105, 805, 807, 43 91; Urquhart Brown, 205 179, 459, 51 760; ex rel. Kennedy Tyler, 269 13, 46 1, 70 138; supra, 115, 343; Abernathy, 320 219, (88 3).'4 person, protected presumption innocence, subjected attacks courts,5 wise commands asked, questions presented.6 validity expeditiously finally adjudicated.7 32 consistently followed practice. Some form letters sent convicts prisons corpus.8 Gordon Scudder, 163 518, Ninth applied opinion. All circuit approved it.9 33 Today limits confuses expounded supra. Certainly essential applicant know test public system spared expense interference succession defects. serious difficult problems solved very core vagueness uncertainty.10 34 conclude II. 35 next this. Can once available11—appeal—and take conditions existing restricted ability regular course handling verdict, cn available?12 36 discharge 'a violation *'13 Frank Mangum, 'to safeguard persons infringement *.'14 dissent agreed saying 346 237 U.S., 595 S.Ct., 59 969: 'But cuts forms goes tissue structure. comes outside, subordination proceedings, although every preserved, opens empty shell.' rights, 37 is, writ.15 Thus, presented this: Was record exhaust, corpus? An best derived function government, precedents analogies drawn decided resolution similar related fields. 38 systems provide places offenders laws states. equally administer limitations States, supreme land, binding 'any thing constitution notwithstanding.'16 brings challenging collaterally asking custody, relation structures raised. 'It exceedingly delicate courts, indictment subject laws, may, officers state, discharged therefrom *.'17 Respect practice dual government intervene prosecutions exceptional circumstances. Their compels act fails violations regard admonishes chary allowing extraordinary accused, excuse, redress rights.18 39 desirability inheres sovereignties re-enforced considerations practical administration: deliberately deny individual Constitution; normal paths review—appeal certiorari—are correct errors proceedings; (3) extravagant another technique delay permits long periods elapse sentencing execution sentence. 40 Because reasons, limited types situations. example: exhausted; seriously inadequate;19 attempts interfere improperly Government. 41 third class represents largest group situations remedies. come examples branch Government,20 agency,21 treaty States.22 42 second Moore Dempsey, 261 86, 265, 543. required.23 'We accordance (Frank 309, 335, 582, 590, 969) corrective supplied ought allowed. whole mask—that swept fatal end irresistible wave passion, wrongs, neither perfection machinery correction nor possibility saw avoiding immediate outbreak mob petitioners rights.'24 Moore's unique, emphasizes unusual nature; again compelled resort extreme protect rights. greatest fall one. cases: *'25 Litigation category offers example general federal-habeas-corpus restraint. concise proposition must, most forums incident answered. 44 trials, must followed. exists Court.26 permitted reserve grounds furnished court; higher court.27 permit trifling disrupt efficient administration. depends utilize place 'remediless.'28 seemly dulled memories, death stilled tongues, records unavailable, felons, unburdened handicap presentation unfairness sentences errors, known trial. When shown involves remedy, limitation, think tha error. 45 Goto Lane, 265 393, 525, 1070, prisoners, territorial Hawaii, said: 'And, lost substitute.'29 found sound discretion, excused Consequently, affirmed persuasive precedent situation forty-eight Hawaii stood, 1924, positions scope Hawaiian same, valid distinctions Goto's us.30 thought follow instance jurisprudence loss press issues time. too established citation. Term, Parker Illinois, 333 . S. 571, 708, required intermediate Appellate and, consequently chance adjudication issues.31 III. 47 seems me considerations, analogies, discussed admit basic ample suggestion interference, disabilities otherwise, secure, choice, allegedly erroneous conviction.32 Therefore, whom cognizance writ, sua sponte, since available33 advantage remedies.34 'Available' carries connotation procedure.35 Florida's object authorizing examine conviction. depend acquiescence policy non-interference complete final 48 hypothesis dismissing entered instead stands better position. If avail foreclosed limitation. n clarifying order, resources reaching situation. Loftus 804, 1212. instructions dismissed. 49 CHIEF JUSTICE, JACKSON BURTON join dissent. Kirk, 155 906, 163. Mayo Cir., has, instances, Clerk, distributed Potter Dowd, 146 244, 248: latest subject. intended enlighten inferior road travel fewer obstructions. Also, convict believes haven seeking.' 450. ground, White Ragen, 324 760, 767, 65 978, 982, 89 1348; Houe 42, 48, 517, 521, 739. 691, 692, 1280, infra, comment over convictions. Those observations here. 694, 695, 1281, 1282, infra. letter Hanley, 322 1045, 1552: 'Your examined. From examination, that, filed, your appear you contained recent Henry (filed 1944), (Ex 572) wherein "Ordinarily 'Accordingly, returned herewith. If, desire return (referring letter) office clerk 'I wish expressing Lyon Harkness, 151 731, 733; Monsky Warden Clinton Prison, 979; Stonebreaker Smyth, 498, 501, 502; Nusser Aderhold, 164 127; Makowski Benson, 158; Ross Nierstheimer, 159 994; Guy Utecht, 144 913, 915; 518; Herzog Colpoys, U.S.App.D.C. 81, 143 137, 138. Maggio Zeitz, 56, 401, 414. 'An ninety sentence entered, entered.' Fla.Stat.Ann. § 924.09. provides devices convictions: coram nobis. tried failed. Coram nobis attention specific Lamb 396, 107 535. House 130 400, 177 705; cf. Hysler 315 411, 415, 416, 642, 688, 690, 932. seeks known, judge. U.S.C. §§ 451—453, U.S.C.A. 451—453. Under Judiciary Act 1789, competent jurisdiction. Watkins, Pet. 193, 650. Congress expanded violated 5, 1867. Stat. 385, ch. 28; see Olson, 326 271, 274, 275, 66 118, 90 61; 330, 332, 588, 589, 969. 331, 250 et seq., 739, 868; re Wood, 140 278, 290, 738, 742, 505; Cook Hart, 183, 195, 40, 44, 934; Frederich, 149 70, 75, 793, 794, 653; New York Eno, 89, 30, 80; Lincoln, 202 178, 181, 602, 603, 50 984; Salinger Loisel, 224, 231, 519, 989; 403, 527, 1070; re. 2, Const., art. VI; Robb Connolly, 111 624, 637, 544, 551, 542. Baker Grice, 169 284, 291, 323, 326, 748. 329, 587, 969; 247, 254, 737-741, Neagle, 135 658, 55; Hunter 209 205, 472, 52 747 (impairment functions courts); Loney, 134 372, 584, 949 thel egislative branches Government). Boske Comingore, 701, 846; Ohio Thomas, 173 276, 453, 699. Wildenhus' Case, 120 565. Martineau, Ark. 237, 232 S.W. 609. 91, 266. Powell Alabama, 287 45, 53 55, 77 158, 84 527; 760. Andrews Swartz, 156 272, 389, 391, 422; 289, Spencer, 228 652, 709, 57 1010; Glasgow Moyer, 225 420, 430, 753, 756, 56 1147; Waley 964, 966, 1302; Sunal Large, 332 174, 1588, 1982. Bowen 306 27, 442, 446, 83 455: defining power.' Adams McCann, 317 269, 63 236, 239, 87 268, 435; 402, 527. Riddle Dyche, 262 333, 555, 1009; Craig Hecht, 263 255, 277, 106, 293. April 1900, Territory provided that: relating appeals, writs error, removal causes, shall govern Hawaii.' 645. 1925, '* statute thereunder *.' 936. retained reviewed Appeals. 225, 225. Central Union Tel. Co. Edwardsville, 190, 90, 229. differs Williams Kaiser, 323 471, 363, 364, 398; Tomkins Missouri, 485, 486, 370, 371, 407; Smith O'Grady, 312 334, 61 572, 574, 85 859. A passes merits, Herndon Lowry, 301 242, 732, 81 1066. Lovelady Texas, 867, 787 (cert. granted), Id., 879, 914 (dismissed), Lovelady, Tex.Cr.App., 207 S.W.2d 396. decide applies governed example, able late 'available' 1049; De Meerleer Michigan, 329 663, 596, 584; Downer Dunaway, 586, 591.

Category: 8