Document: 411 U.S. 345 93 S.Ct. 1571 36 L.Ed.2d 294 Kirby J. HENSLEY, Petitioner,v.MUNICIPAL COURT, SAN JOSE MILPITAS JUDICIAL DISTRICT, SANTA CLARA COUNTY, State of CALIFORNIA. No. 71—1428. Argued Jan. 15, 1973. Decided April 18, Syllabus Restraints imposed on petitioner who was released his own recognizance constitute 'custody' within the meaning federal habeas corpus statute, 28 U.S.C. §§ 2241(c)(3), 2254(a). Pp. 348—353. (9 Cir. 1972) 453 F.2d 1252, reversed. Stanley A. Bass, New York City, for petitioner. Dennis Alan Lempert, San Jose, Cal., respondent. Mr. Justice BRENNAN delivered opinion Court. 1 This case requires us to determine whether a person is 'in custody' See Peyton v. Rowe, 391 54, 88 1549, 20 L.Ed. 426 (1968); Carafas LaVallee, 234, 1556, 554 Jones Cunningham, 371 236, 83 373, 9 285 (1963). Petitioner initiated this action in United States District Court Northern California, challenging state court conviction First and Fourteenth Amendment grounds. The denied relief, holding that since enlarged pending execution sentence, he not yet purposes statute. Appeals Ninth Circuit agreed release one's sufficient custody confer jurisdiction Court, affirmed judgment. 1252 (1972).1 We granted certiorari, 409 840, 43, 34 79 (1972), we reverse. 2 Convicted misdemeanor California Municipal violation § 29007 Education Code,2 sentenced serve one year jail pay fine $625. He appealed unsuccessfully Appellate Department Superior efforts have set aside collateral attack proved equally unavailing. It appears exhausted all available remedies prior filing petition corpus. 2254(b).3 3 At times has been recognizance. While pursuing remained at large under an order trial staying sentence. And extended its stay, even after Supreme declined hear application postconviction apparently permit remain while seeking Pending appeal from Court's denial extension stay by Black, as Acting Justice, August 12, 1970, Douglas, 20, again September 9, 1970.4 corpus, but 30-day mandate certiorari. That March 1972, it pursuant remains present time. 4 Penal Code provides any may defendant upon giving bail him recognizance, provided agrees writing that: 5 '(a) will appear places ordered or magistrate releasing which, before whom, charge subsequently pending. 6 '(b) If fails so apprehended outside waives extradition. 7 '(c) Any competent revoke either return require give other assurance appearance . ..' Cal.Penal 1318.4. 8 A subject re-arrest if agreed, id., 1318.8(a), willful failure itself criminal offense. Id., 1319.6. assume these statutory conditions stayed question presented our decision narrow one: namely, price term used Respondent contends are significantly less restrictive than those (1963), where held parole district courts' jurisdiction. true, course, parolee generally greater restrictions liberty movement some lower courts reasoned difference precludes writ cases such us.5 On hand, substantial number courts, perhaps majority, concluded be statute.6 In view analysis, which led finding supra, conclude latter line reflects sounder view. 10 'rhetoric celebrating changed little over centuries,'7 nevertheless true functions undergone dramatic change. Our recent decisions premise 'a static, narrow, formalistic remedy,' 243, S.Ct., 377, must retain 'ability cut through barriers form procedural mazes.' Harris Nelson, 394 286, 291, 89 1082, 1086, 22 281 (1969). Frank Mangum, 237 309, 346, 35 582, 594, 59 969 (1915) (Holmes, J., dissenting). 'The very nature demands administered with initiative flexibility essential insure miscarriages justice reach surfaced corrected.' 1086. 11 Thus, consistently rejected interpretations statute would suffocate stifling formalisms hobble effectiveness manacles arcane scholastic requirements. demand speed, flexibility, simplicity clearly evident concerning exhaustion doctrine, Fay Noia, 372 391, 822, 837 (1963); Brown Allen, 344 443, 73 397, 97 469 (1953); criteria relitigation factual questions, Townsend Sain, 293, 745, 770 prematurity choice forum, Braden 30th Judicial Ky., 410 484, 1123, 443 (1973); Strait Laird, 406 341, 92 1693, 32 141 (1972); requirements hearing. supra. same theme indelibly marked construction statute's requirement. supra; Walker Wainwright, 390 335, 962, 19 1215 supra.8 12 requirement designed preserve remedy severe restraints individual liberty. Since extraordinary whose operation extent uninhibited traditional rules finality federalism, use limited special urgency, leaving more conventional neither nor immediate. Applying principle, can only First, 'not shared public generally,' 240, 376, is, obligation 'at ordered' '(a)ny jurisdiction.' Cal. 1318.4(a), 1318.4(c). cannot come go pleases. His freedom rests hands judicial officers, presence time without moment's notice. Disobedience restraint surely no unattached reserve officer whom supra.9 13 Second, grace entered first then two Justices emphatically indicated determination put behind bars, taken every possible step secure result. incarceration not, words, speculative possibility depends contingencies control. unfolding events render entire controversy academic. forced fend off authorities means power seize soon obstacle removed. need keep force unusual impairment 14 Moreover, conclusion presently does interfere significant interest State. Indeed, were accept respondent's argument custody, result do postpone until had begun service sentence.10 still open petitioner's consideration claim. re Shuttlesworth, 369 35, 82 551, 548 (1962). Even long enough filed jeopardize action. supra.11 Plainly, badly history hold circumstances spend minutes deprive constitutional 15 Finally, emphasize doors petitions persons their concerned here convicted opportunities aside. Where appeal, contend doctrine seeks relief courts. Nothing today's alters defendant. 16 erroneously filed, judgment reversed remanded consider 17 Reversed remanded. 18 BLACKMUN, concurring I again, did my separate concurrence 501, 1132, (1973), wandered way down road expanding notions now concedes this. Ante, 349. another step. Although recognizing liberty, ante, 351, seems equate almost restraint, however, tenuous. One wonders end is. Nevertheless, light already decided feel compelled along therefore concur REHNQUIST, THE CHIEF JUSTICE POWELL join, dissenting. 21 issue 'custody,' 2241, entitling benefit unanimously actual constructive custody. there vestige left obvious original below right majority today further stretched both letter rationale free imposition sentence summer 1969. authorizing imposes territorial supervisory limitations none. required post security appearance. petition, conceivable expiration court, surrender himself sheriff. record shows three one-half years utilized travel business purposes. 23 restriction subpoenaed testify witness. simply known sense word, what meant Congress when enacted 2241. feels, like Faust, previous made bargain devil, shy final rewriting agree, dissent. controlled Matysek States, 339 389 (1964). awarding Doctor Divinity degrees obtaining necessary accreditation. defended grounds chief presiding bona fide church, church awarded honorary certificates completed course instruction church's principles, interference practice unconstitutional exercise religious beliefs. There forfeited raise challenge deliberately bypassing opportunity claim maintains absented following close prosecution's case, full knowledge continue absence. thereby relinquished, respondent contends, defend evidence behalf. argues response counsel failed advise reopening warn absence lead conviction. Accordingly, asserts should knowingly intelligently bypassed procedure. point obscure, express beyond noting considered, much resolved, below, decision. Motion Stay, 11, addressed Circuit, explained 'Stay Execution Trial scheduled expire Sheriff Santa Clara County immediate incarceration.' Stay 2. See, e.g., ex rel. Meyer Weil, 458 1068 (CA7 1972); Allen 349 362 (CA1 1965); Application Jackson, 338 F.Supp. 1225 (WD Tenn.1971); Granello Krueger, 306 1046 (EDNY 1969); Moss Maryland, 272 (Md.1967). Capler City Greenville, 422 299, 301 (CA5 1970); Marden Purdy, 784, 785 Beck Winters, 407 125, 126—127 (CA8 Burris Ryan, 397 553, 555 1968); Smith DiBella, 314 446 (Conn.1970); Ouletta Sarver, 307 1099, 1101 n. (ED Ark.1970), aff'd, 428 804 Cantillon 305 304, 306—307 (CD Cal.1969); Matzner Davenport, 288 636, 638 (NJ 1968), 1376 (CA3 Nash 283 837, 838—839 (SD Fla.1968); Duncombe York, 267 103, 109 (SDNY 1967); Foster Gilbert, 264 209, 211—212 Fla.1967). addition, laws 'sufficient Smiley, 66 Cal.2d 606, 613, 58 Cal.Rptr. 579, 583, 427 P.2d 179, 183 (1967). Note, Developments Law—Federal Habeas Corpus, Harv.L.Rev. 1038, 1040 (1970). Insofar former decisions, Stallings Splain, 253 339, 40 537, 64 L.Ed 940 (1920); Johnson Hoy, 227 245, 33 57 497 (1913); Baker Grice, 169 284, 323, 42 748 (1898); Wales Whitney, 114 564, 1050, 29 277 (1885), indicate narrower reading requirement, they longer deemed controlling. none rely, earlier cited opinions Similarly, Commonwealth Kentucky lodged detainer against prisoner Alabama jail, officials By contrast, merely postponed jurisdiction, barred altogether. could exercised revoked. Cf. Pon Esperdy, 296 726 Goldberg Hendrick, 254 288—289 Pa.1966).

Category: 0