Document: 365 U.S. 708 81 S.Ct. 895 6 L.Ed.2d 39 Neal Merle SMITH, Petitioner,v.John E. BENNETT, Warden. Richard W. MARSHALL, Petitioner, v. John Nos. 174, 177. Argued March 28, 1961. Decided April 17, Mr. Luther L. Hill, Jr., Des Moines, Iowa, for petitioner in each case. Evan Hultman, Waterloo, respondent both cases. Justice CLARK delivered the opinion of Court. 1 The issue these habeas corpus cases concerns validity, under Equal Protection Clause Fourteenth Amendment, requirement Iowa law that necessitates payment statutory filing fees1 by an indigent prisoner State before application a writ or allowance appeal such proceedings will be docketed. As we noted Burns Ohio, 1959, 360 252, 256, 79 1164, 1167, 3 1209, '(t)he State's commendable frankness (these) case(s) has simplified issues.' In its brief, conceded 'indigent convicted criminals are unable to file petition Iowa.' We hold interpose any financial consideration between and his exercise state right sue liberty is deny equal protection laws. 2 No. Smith Bennett, Warden, was sentenced serve 10 years penitentiary offense breaking entering. due course he released on parole. After short period, however, this revoked violation conditions. Petitioner arrested thereafter returned completion sentence. He then forwarded Clerk District Court Lee County, with accompanying motion proceed forma pauperis affidavit proverty. raised constitutional questions as validity warrant arrest which taken into custody penitentiary. refused docket without $4 fee. filed Supreme leave pauperis, together pauper's oath, court denied opinion. On Court, dismissed but treated papers certiorari, granted, limited above question, 363 834, 80 1624, 4 1723. 177, Marshall petitioner, who represented counsel, pleaded guilty information charging entering years' imprisonment at Penitentiary. A year later alleging detained 'contrary provisions 14th § 1' because 'fatal face' 'it does not charge 'intent" further 'plea thereon obtained coercion duress.' Accompanying affidavit. Thereafter, unreported written order, fee but, nevertheless, examined found it 'would have if properly presented Court.' also denied. Petitioner's here question posed opening paragraph, supra. 838, 1617, 1724. supra, decided could 'constitutionally require * defendant criminal case (to) pay permitting him one courts.' page 253, 1166. That decision predicated upon our earlier holding Griffin People Illinois, 1956, 351 12, 76 585, 100 L.Ed. 891, entitled transcript record trial, adequate substitute therefor, where needed effectively prosecute from conviction. gist '(t)here no rational basis assuming indigents' motions less meritorious than those other defendants,' pages 257—258, 1168, can justice kind trial man gets depends amount money has,' 19, 591, consequently imposition barriers restricting availability appellate review defendants place heritage Under Law.' 258, 1169. had long anticipated rule announced cases, i.e., may convictions prior fees, I.C.A. 789.20 (enacted 1917), transcripts provided county used appeals, 792.8 1878). points out, 'were concerned rights seeking make direct attack conviction *.' Habeas corpus, hand, detention is, therefore, collateral proceeding. State, admits Great Writ 'is available postconviction civil remedy Iowa' concedes prisoner's inability would render unavailable him. therefore clearly posed: Since prisoners fee, constitutionally preclude use do not? 5 insists so three reasons. First, action brought obtain personal liberty, right, must made indigents free fees like manner all every right. Second, 663.5, legislature extend limit application. Finally, United States Iowa's fulfills demand 28 U.S.C. 2254, U.S.C.A. 'the existence circumstances rendering (state corrective) process ineffective protect prisoner' present. While may, course, procedural purposes, Ex parte Tom Tong, 1883, 108 556, 871, 27 826, follow testing detain subject them writ. says, 'extremely nominal' sum, get might well $400—which emphasizes not. post-conviction $4. shall quibble whether context called for, Selden said, highest law, imprisoned.' Howell's Trials 95 (1628). procedure regain lost through cannot contingent choice labels. Ever since Magna Charta, man's greatest right—personal liberty—has been guaranteed, procedures Dorpus Act 16792 gave Englishman prompt effective legality imprisonment. Considered Founders safeguard Constitution 'privilege suspended, unless when Cases Rebellion Invasion public Safety it.' Art. I, 9. Its principle imbedded fundamental 47 States. It federal courts Federal Governments test their detention. Over centuries common world's 'freedom writ' whose orderly processes production required grounds incarceration inquired into, failing set free. repeat what truly said writ: 'there higher duty maintain unimpaired,' Bowen Johnston, 1939, 306 26, 59 442, 446, 83 455, unsuspended, save only specified Constitution. When equivalent granted hurdles permitted condition exercise. 7 To applications necessarily mean actions involving same footing. Only involved pass them. 8 Attorney General argues seek 'vindication alleged State' courts. But even though true—an additional point passed here—it ill-behoove great devotion equality indelibly stamped history, say redress they believe wrongs: 'Go court.' Moreover, offer raisable corpus. 9 Because established procedure, need consider neither petitioners some type vindication rights, nor converse claim matter legislative grace. However, operation statutes has, perhaps inadvertently, persons necessary fees. This do. Throughout shield freedom insuring illegally detained. Respecting grant detention, Amendment weighs interests rich poor scale, hand extends far each. privilege prisoners, denies judgments vacated cause remanded consistent 11 Vacated remanded. (Cum.Supp.1960) 606.15 provides pertinent part clerk district collect (f)or docketing same, four dollars.' Section 685.3 states relevant (of Court) (u) pon appeal, 31 Car. II, c. 2.

Category: 1