Document: 373 U.S. 1 83 S.Ct. 1068 10 L.Ed.2d 148 Charles Edward SANDERS, Petitioner,v.UNITED STATES. No. 202. Argued Feb. 25, 1963. Decided April 29, [Syllabus from pages 1-2 intentionally omitted] Fred M. Vinson, Jr., Washington, D.C., for petitioner. Miss Beatrice Rosenberg, respondent. Mr. Justice BRENNAN delivered the opinion of Court. We consider here standards which should guide a federal court in deciding whether to grant hearing on motion prisoner under 28 U.S.C. § 2255.1 2 Under that statute, who claims his sentence was imposed violation Constitution or laws United States may seek relief by filing sentencing stating facts supporting claim. '(A) prompt hearing' is required '(u)nless and files records case conclusively show entitled no * *.' The section further provides '(t)he shall not be entertain second successive similar behalf same prisoner.' 3 petitioner serving 15-year robbery federally insured bank 18 2113(a). He filed two motions 2255. first alleged but only bare conclusions support second, eight months after first, which, if true, might entitle him relief. Both were denied, without hearing, District Court Northern California. On appeal denial motion, Appeals Ninth Circuit affirmed. 297 F.2d 735. granted leave proceed forma pauperis certiorari. 370 936, 82 1592, 8 806. 4 January 19 ,1959, brought before California, handed copy proposed information charging with robbery. appeared counsel. In response inquiries trial judge, stated he wished waive assistance counsel rather than indictment;2 signed waiver indictment, then pleaded guilty charge information. February sentenced. Before pronounced, said judge: 'If possible, your Honor, I would like go Springfield Lexington addiction cure. have been using narcotics off quite while.' judge replied 'willing recommend that.' 4, 1960, petitioner, appearing pro se, motion. merely (1) 'Indictment' invalid, (2) 'Appellant denied adequate Counsel as guaranteed Sixth Amendment,' (3) had 'allowed Appellant intimidated coerced into intering (sic) plea Counsel, any knowledge charges lodged against Appellant.' an application writ habeas corpus ad testificandum requiring prison authorities produce testify both application. memorandum accompanying denial, explained 'although replete conclusions, sets forth upon such can founded. For this reason alone, hearing.' Nevertheless, 'sets nothing unsupported charges, are completely refuted case. Since relief, necessary.' No taken denial. 5 September again This time at mentally incompetent result administered while held Sacramento County Jail pending trial. affidavit confined jail about 16, 1959, 18, 1959; during period 'trial' intermittently influence narcotics; medical attendance because being known addict. stating: 'As there given, apparent Court, why could not, raised issue mental incompetency will refuse, exercise its statutory discretion, present petition.' (Footnote omitted.) also 'petitioner's complaints merit fact.' order denying 735 (1961). per curiam opinion: 'Where, here, it record movant knew based, yet set previously unable assert new ground did allege unaware significance relevant facts, district court, may, decline motion.' F.2d, 736—737. 6 reverse. hold I. 7 statute terms requires alleges sufficient claim unless 'conclusively show' merit. we called determine what significance, attach proceedings prior among case, light provision that: 'The has caused uncertainty Courts, see Bistram v. States, 180 F.Supp. 501 (D.C.D.N.Dak.), aff'd, 283 (C.A.8th Cir., 1960), provoked conflict between circuits: decision instant compare, e.g., Juelich 300 381 (C.A.5th 1962); Smith 106 U.S.App.D.C. 169, 270 921 (1959). think guidelines proper construction found history. At common law, res judicata. King Suddis, East 306, 102 Eng.Rep. 119 (K.B.1801); Burdett Abbot, 14 1, 90, 104 501, 535 (K.B.1811); Ex parte Partington, 13 & W. 679, 153 284 (Ex.1845); Church, Habeas Corpus (1884), 386; Ferris Ferris, Extraordinary Legal Remedies (1926), 55.3 'A person detained custody thus until obtained liberty.' Cox Hakes, 15 A.C. 506, 527 (H.L., 1890).4 That principle our law well English assumed earliest days jurisdiction. Cf. Burford, Cranch 448, L.Ed. 495 (Chief Marshall). then, become settled unbroken line decisions. Kaine, Blatchf. 5—6 (Mr. Nelson Chambers); re How. 103, 345; Cuddy, 40 F. 62, 65 (Cir.Ct.S.D.Cal.1889) Field); Frank Mangum, 237 309, 334, 35 582, 590, 59 969; Salinger Loisel, 265 224, 230, 44 519, 521, 68 989; Waley Johnston, 316 101, 62 964, 86 1302; ex rel. Accardi Shaughnessy, 347 260, 263, n. 74 499, 98 681; Heflin 358 415, 420, 79 451, 454, 407 (opinion Stewart) (dictum); Powell Sacks, 303 808 (C.A.6th 1962). Indeed, other day remarked 'the familiar judicata inapplicable proceedings.' Fay Noia, 372 391, 423, 822, 840. 9 It suggested, supra, U.S., 230—231, S.Ct., 521—522, 989, derives fact judgments appealable. But roots seem deeper. Conventional notions finality litigation place where life liberty stake infringement constitutional rights alleged. If 'government (is) always (to) accountable judiciary man's imprisonment,' 375 402, page 829, access courts must impeded. inapplicability habeas, inherent very role function writ. A whose 2255 often file another, sometimes many motions. aware consequence question troublesome—particularly when prepared contains matter extraneous prisoner's problem new, decisions identified situations even though states One situation involved supra. There, one affirmed Appeals. subsequent applications, all identical different indicated applications properly simply basis followed full merits. announced governing principle; reaffirming said: 'each disposed sound judicial discretion guided controlled consideration whatever rational bearing propriety discharge sought. Among matters considered, given controlling weight, refusal application.' 231, 989. quoted approvingly Field's 66: "The action justice naturally affected some degree character officer whom made, fullness it." 231—232, 522, petitioner's sought retry fully considered decided him. Similarly, alleging already prisoner. 11 Another presented Wong Doo 239, 524, 999. tendered grounds position. offered proof ground, return put issue. Relief Later, relying exclusively ground. denied. upheld denial: opportunity offer (the ground) petition, and, intending rely good faith then. To reserve use attempting later failed, make abusive corpus. presenting outset offered. embodied record, briefs shows accessible time.' 241, 525, deliberately withheld need heard asserts motion; inequitable—an abuse remedy—and deny hearing. 12 interaction these principles—a application, writ—was elaborated Price 334 266, 287—293, 1049, 1061—1064, 92 1356. fourth knowing perjured testimony prosecution. regardless number Loisel come play relied determined. distinguished 'accessible times' demonstrated bad faith, 289, 1356; Price, contrast, aught disclosed justifiably ignorant newly their legal significance. important procedural regard remedy justification namely, burden Government plead '(I)f chooses allegation (of testimony) sufficiency desires instead abused corpus, rests clarity particularity cause.' Id., 292, 1063, reasoned unfair compel applicant, typically unlearned procure drafting elaborate negative. Very shortly decision, part 1948 revision Judicial Code, Court's statement treatment form. 2244.5 There several things observed codification. First, plainly intended change judicially evolved. Not does Reviser's Note disclaim intention, language original bill injected eliminated Act finally passed. See S.Rep.No.1559, 80th Cong., 2d Sess. 9; Moore, Commentary Code (1949), 436—438. Moreover, construed derogate traditional liberality pp. 7—8, 2244 raise serious questions.6 406, 831. Second, respect hearings asserted decided, Salinger, faithful phrasing enact rigid rule. permitted, compelled, 'is satisfied ends served' inquiring 16 Third, addressed based decided. cover containing 'not theretofore determined,' so touch Doo, determined application; situation. hand, obviously foreclose abuse-of-writ developed Price. 17 Section arises, course product enacted, Note, provide 'an expeditious correcting erroneous sentences prisoners) resort corpus.' noted although parallel 2244, verbal discrepancy. 2255, enough, invoke court's reach merits, seeking 'similar relief' time. empower apply virtually will, since predicated ordinarily 'relief.' Yale L.J. 1183, 1188, 24 (1950). cannot literally. Hayman, 342 205, 72 96 232, vigorously contended unconstitutional suspension corpus.7 avoided holding broad corpus: 'This review history passed instance Conference meet practical difficulties arisen administering jurisdiction courts. Nowhere do find purpose impinge prisoners' collateral attack convictions. contrary, sole minimize encountered affording another more convenient forum.' 219, 272, 232. (Emphasis supplied.) Accord, Morgan, 346 502, 511, 247, 252—253, 248; 88 80, 187 192 (1950); 421, 454—455, Stewart). As just last Term, 'it appears historic context enacted legislation exactly commensurate available confined.' Hill 368 424, 427, 468, 471, 417. 20 Plainly, invoking faced bar judicata, enjoy 'same rights' 'a with' habeas. subject substantial hurdles made less swift imperative gravest doubts engendered, Hayman implicitly recognized. And cf. p. 11-12, therefore deemed material equivalent 2244. 173, 921, 925 (1959); Longsdorf, Federal Acts Original Amended, F.R.D. 407, 424 (1953). helped conclusion considerations. 21 indication legislative Congress treat differently procedure; difficult logical distinction. 22 assuming constitutionality incorporating probably prove ineffectual, remains 'inadequate ineffective.' barred ineffective' corpus—where, course, applies. U.S.App.D.C., 174, 926. II. 23 evolution principles reached point formulation basic rules lower feasible desirable. Compare Townsend Sain, 293, 310, 745. procedure differentiate purposes. operative cases shown, files, §§ 2243, A. SUCCESSIVE MOTIONS ON GROUNDS PREVIOUSLY HEARD AND DETERMINED. 25 Controlling weight relief8 adversely applicant determination served reaching merits 26 By 'ground,' mean granting applicant. example, contention involuntary confession admitted evidence distinct psychological coercion 'ground' physical coercion. words, proved factual allegations. So also, supported arguments, Wilson Cook, 327 474, 481, 66 663, 667, 90 793; Dewey Des Moines, 173 193, 198, 379, 380—381, 43 665, couched language, Jones, 194 F.supp. 421 (D.C.D.Kan.1961) (dictum), aff'd mem., 835 (C.A.10th 1962), vary immaterial respects, Stilwell Marshals, 853 (C.A.4th 1951) (per curiam). Should arise particular same, they resolved favor 27 rested adjudication Hobbs Pepersack, 301 875 means issues issues, evidentiary held. Motley 230 110 1956); Hallowell 197 926 1952). Even rejected open permitting redetermination involved, showing fair; canvassed criteria fair recently discussion repeated here. purely questions intervening having failed crucial argument Two points noted. foregoing enumeration exhaustive; test justice' too finely particularized. that, 29 B. THE APPLICATION CLAIMED TO BE AN ABUSE OF REMEDY. 30 how Subpart A, too, earlier adjudicated either remedy; pleading. 11, 31 say respondent recognize 'habeas traditionally regarded governed equitable principles. Baldi, 344 561, 573, 73 397, 97 549 (dissenting opinion). them suitor's conduct relation hand disentitle seeks. Narrowly circumscribed, conformity historical effective detentions contrary fundamental unexceptionable.' 438, 848. Thus, withholds hope reason, waived right true if, abandons Nothing traditions tolerate needless piecemeal litigation, vex, harass, delay. 32 pause over remedy. recent opinions 438—440, 848, 849, 317, 760, 761, deal length circumstances foreclosed those govern equally 33 final qualification, applicable B discussion, order. justifications judges. Theirs major responsibility administration remedies, theirs judgment clearly power—and, demand, duty—to 312, 318, 293. confident power soundly applied. III. 34 Application presents difficulties. Petitioner's bald Wilkins 103 322, 258 416 (1958), better direct amend Stephens 246 607 1957) ruling pleading deficient. sure, footnote memorandum: reviewed entire includes previous proceeding, transcript entered plea, view 'files case,' including transcript, narcotic drugs However regular declined counsel, appear still intelligent understanding rights. Machibroda 487, 510, 473; Moore Michigan, 355 155, 78 191, 167; Commonwealth Pennsylvania Herman Claudy, 350 116, 76 223, 100 126; Taylor 193 411 (C.A. 10th Von Moltke Gillies, 332 708, 316, 309. outside record. presided waivers, Whether necessarily judge. Petitioner briefly. thought acted intelligence responding judge's show,' requires, 495, 514, 473. anything, request send hospital 'for cure' cuts way. advised Government's brief probation officer's report Court) received withdrawal symptoms sentencing. remand, required. say, however, automatically necessary enable testify. every colorable entitles trip court. Congress, recognizing administrative transportation prisoners provided entertained 'without production prevented testifying material. However, clear ascertain connection, useful appoint represent Coppedge 369 446, 917, 921—922, 21. Also, attempt failure remedy, within disentitling advanced respondent, tried present. Term: 36 'What imply (under 2255) allowed expressly belie claim, vague, conclusory, palpably incredible allegations be. strip sense. itself recognizes times investigated personal presence petition appropriately 37 'There marginal cases, far line. specific detailed assertions improbable, juncture incredible. *' 495—496, 38 great care criminal evidenced adjudged crime carrying heavy penalty summary proceeding represented possibly, constitutionally adequate. nature, defendant unrepresented presumption adequacy compelling nature preclude appellate review. afforded. An ought niceties lawyers' pleadings cursorily dismissed seems unlikely meritorious. vexatious repetitious, lacks substance, fairly demonstrated. 39 Finally, remark imaginative handling general much anticipate avoid limit narrowly alleged, out conclusional, inartistically expressed. free adopt appropriate inquiry legality detention possible Certainly grants allows disposition ascertained way spread Of extent grounds, necessary. reversed remanded consistent opinion. 41 ordered. 42 WHITE concurs result. HARLAN, CLARK joins, dissenting. together 745, form trilogy 'guideline' undertaken restate responsibilities post-conviction proceedings. Sain Noia relate arising state involves (and finds pattern 45 over-all effect pronouncements relegate back seat, affects finding proceedings, end litigation. 46 While, entirely shown aspect impact likely curbing ability Courts cope efficiently, fairly, prisoners,1 doubtless increase today. net own bears little resemblance Congress. process gone suggest tampering composition run afoul Constitution. 47 outset, straw man removed pains develop theme recognizes, indeed decisions, strict doctrines field. consequences injustice—loss loss life—are permit automatic body technical primary relevance lies area civil 48 suggest, finality, law. individual society interest insuring certainty comes attention ultimately focused conviction error restored community. mind, desire confinements justice, legislatures availability 49 Thus long recognized occurred years adopted, down century, generally 450—455, writer). scope expanded kind consistently neither nor counterpart substitute appeal. See, Sunal Large, 67 1588, 91 1982; 417; Franano 470. 50 initial Indeed before, held, year 1356, acceptable excuse so. 51 related dealing writs considered. Concern existing potential pastime led proposals wholly barred, except petitions rehearing became submitted discovery E.g., H.R. 4232, 79th 1st Sess.; 6723, These exercised extended before. wording 52 '* added.) 53 word 'new,' ignored provision, cardinal importance. Judge Stone, adopted Senate Report (S.Rep.No. 1527, Sess.), purposes version 'to him' afford unlimited thereafter discover latter 'brought allowing presentation 'new' determined."2 'new ground,' meaning known. manifestly conclusion, ante, 11—13, limited 54 Although general, directed end: 55 56 'relief' setting aside sentence; reference urged doubt vested extend 57 Further, 2255—the 'sentencing court' 'required entertain' motions—that abuse, initiative waiting return. extent, departed rule declared adoption 1356—that abuse) Such departure amply justified unlike (usually himself), ready certainly reasonably concluded, dissenters 58 'It ask state, however informally, discovered matter, or, event, asked bring petitions. requirement narrow protection serves.' 294,3 1064, writ; proving explicitly placed prisoner: 60 'Once answering writ.' 61 today, leaves up air. Government, going beyond sharply divided almost lie exclusive possession prisoner, seldom meet. startling enough now establish, conviction, least learn turn 'deliberately' abandoned stage. Ante, 18. established concept inexcusable neglect apparently standard taking am afraid, inadequate unsatisfactory. 63 protest implication field reasonable men surely differ—has enshrined guarantee Article perhaps perspective noting Constitution, after-ward, cognizable all. 64 read back-ground designed vest initiative, least, explanation whole casts 'did understand owing cause(d) drug.' trial, took certain Sanders indicates After Sanders' force following asked: 'Having mind told you wish grand jury? Defendant. No, honor, it. didn't hear that. 69 right. 70 You right? 71 Yes. right, though? want indictment information? 75 Yes.' questions, acting freely voluntarily. him, guilty. 77 Sentencing three weeks after, alleging, inter alia, 'intimidated charges.' insufficiency, correctly 'completely case.' us nine addition commenting relief,' 'reviewed file' 'of inferences drawn observation is: strongly sworn allegation, precisely responded promptly intelligently; 80 mention urged—a lack competence understand—but inconsistent coerced' guilty; months, relevant, raised. 81 assertion highly suspect, self-refuting. valid so, require circumstances, tell sanction manifest seriously wisdom They suffer danger pitfalls usually judging vacuum. carefully written, apt carry unintended once accomplished easy repair. Rules respecting daily solid left case-by-case basis, normal rule-making processes Conference, cathedra remote arena. type, confine ourselves presented, affirm provides: claiming released impose sentence, excess maximum authorized otherwise attack, move vacate, correct sentence. 'Unless cause notice thereof attorney, thereon, findings thereto. rendered jurisdiction, render vulnerable vacate resentence appropriate. 'An appeals pursuant section, setenced ineffective detention.' makes employed advise jury jury. Queen's Bench, my Lord Chief Baron chambers, instances refused. defendant, imprisonment, examine attentively provisions considering concluded decisions.' W., 683—684, Eng. Rep., 286. 389. practice curtailed statute. Administration Act, Eliz. II, c. 65, 14(2). 'No circuit inquire State, determined, inquiry.' I, 9, cl. 2, Privilege Writ suspended, Cases Rebellion Invasion public Safety it.' unconstitutional. 456 (C.A.9th 1950), amended, id., 471 (1951). position Law Journal, 'Section Code: Threatened Demise Corpus,' 1183 powerful mounted respondent's assigned Paul Freund. relates, solely According reports Administrative Office 538 commenced 560 1961, 546 1962. Annual Director, 231; 239; Preliminary 1962, Division Procedural Studies Statistics, 23. referring figures brief, 'do complete Department's experience certiorari Court.' Stone written proposal defining successive, i.e., 'no contained enacted. actual Johnston Congress' deliberations month formal enactment, study proposals.

Category: 0