Legal Document

368 U.S. 424 82 Supreme Court Reporter 468 7 United States Reports Lawyer’s Edition 2d Series KF101.8 U54 417 James Francis HILL, Petitioner,v.UNITED STATES. Number 68. Argued Dec. 5, 1961. Decided Jan. 22, 1962. Rehearing Denied Feb. 26, See 369 808, 640. Curtis R. Reitz, Philadelphia, Pa., for petitioner. Julia Pacific KF135 P2 Cooper respondent. Mr. Justice STEWART delivered the opinion of Court. 1 In 1954 a jury in Federal District found petitioner guilty transporting kidnapped person interstate commerce violation 18 Code KF62 § 1201, Annotated KF65 U5 and stolen automobile 2312, 2312. The was represented by court-appointed counsel at his trial. When, with counsel, he appeared before Judge sentencing, not asked whether wished to make statement own behalf. Judge, after noting familiarity petitioner's character history, imposed consecutive prison sentences twenty years three two offenses which had guilty. There no appeal.1 2 present litigation began 1959 filing motion vacate sentence under 28 2255, 2255. Among various grounds relief asserted, alleged that time sentencing been 'denied right Rule 32(a) Rules Criminal Procedure, Title (18 U.S.C.A.) have opportunity behalf any information mitigation punishment.' denied without explicitly discussing claim. 186 F.Supp. 441. Appeals affirmed, per curiam, 282 Reporter, 2nd 352. We granted certiorari 'limited question may raise claim 32(a), proceeding has now brought.' 365 841, 81 806, 5 808. 3 pertinent part provides: 'Before imposing court shall afford defendant an punishment' meaning this last Term Green versus States, 301, 653, 670. Although there case, eight members concurred view requires district judge every convicted personally speak thus remains doubt as what commands. Moreover, record makes clear given express personal sentenced. This therefore, is totally unembarrassed such factual controversy divided Green. only issue presented court's failure furnishes, more, successful collateral attack upon judgment sentence.2 hold follow formal requirements itself error can be raised attack, we accordingly affirm Appeals. 4 Section 2255 U.S.C., provides prisoner custody federal file 'court vacate, set aside or correct sentence.' statute states four claimed: (1) 'that Constitution laws States,' (2) jurisdiction impose sentence,' (3) excess maximum authorized law,' (4) 'is otherwise subject attack.'3 circumstances led Congress 1948 enact legislation were reviewed detail Chief Vinson, writing Hayman, 342 205, 72 263, 96 L.Ed. 232. It unnecessary review again here legislative Chairman Judicial Conference particularly familiar. Suffice it say conclusively appears from historic context enacted intended simply provide remedy exactly commensurate previously available habeas corpus where confined.4 Heflin 358 415, 421, 79 451, 407 (concurring opinion). 6 '(A) history shows passed instance meet practical difficulties arisen administering courts. Nowhere do find purpose impinge prisoners' rights their convictions. On contrary, sole minimize encountered hearings affording same another more convenient forum.' U.S., 219, S.Ct., 272. (Emphasis added.)5 trial ask attorney anything magnitude cognizable writ corpus. neither jurisdictional nor constitutional. fundamental defect inherently results complete miscarriage justice, omission inconsistent rudimentary demands fair procedure. does 'exceptional need afforded apparent.' Bowen Johnston, 306 19, 27, 59 442, 446, 83 455. Escoe Zerbst, 295 490, 55 818, 1566; Johnston 304 458, 58 1019, 1461; Walker 312 275, 61 574, 85 830; Waley 316 101, 62 964, 86 1302. 8 Sunal Large, 332 174, 67 1588, 91 1982, held unavailable far compelling than are here. petitioners criminal defense subsequent decisions should clearly them. What said case apposite here: 9 'We dealing problem radiations beyond cases. courts tried defendants over persons offense. They committed law * *. That did go court. Congress, moreover, provided regular, orderly method correction all errors granting appeal Circuit vesting us jurisdiction. uncommon ended discover shift impact new decision increased relevance point made but pursued on appeal. If circumstances, could used error, would become delayed trial, renewed legal climate changed. Error deemed sufficiently adequate warrant acquire implications. Wise judicial administration counsels against course, least trench constitutional involve court.' 181—182, 1592. 10 noted affirmatively during hearing imposed. Nor suggested either misinformed uninformed relevant circumstances. Indeed, if formally invited speak. Whether occurred other aggravating therefore consider. decide when shown comply Rule.6 11 although denominated one brought consider illegal 35 Procedure.7 correct. 418, 422, 453, 455, 407. But, Rule's language clear, narrow function permit sentence, re-examine occurring proceedings prior imposition sentence.8 illegal. punishment meted out prescribed statutes, multiple terms offense, legally constitutionally invalid respect.9 12 Affirmed. 13 BLACK, whom THE CHIEF JUSTICE, DOUGLAS BRENNAN concur, dissenting. 14 Hill imprisoned penitentiary, alleging because who them him required Procedure 'to Conceding challenged according speak, nonetheless denies 35's provision 'illegal' ground though flat within special majority ascribes word purposes 35.1 basic explanation offered drastic contraction ordinary single Court's opinion: 15 'The respect.' 16 me amounts something less entirely satisfactory justification begrudging interpretation 35. 17 holding certainly finds support Rule, painstakingly drawn lawyers approved both Judges 'illegal sentence' regard reasons why contains conclusion reason imposes Rule. & N Immigration Nationality Decisions thought manner—whether amount form constitutes additional not—would recognized normal reading English language.2 And precisely sort common-sense understanding prevailed generally among lower deal questions proper application these everyday matter. Those expressed belief that, even limits crime convicted, prohibited manner—as, example, absent command 43 sentencing3—is 35.4 contrary today, however, perhaps foreshadowed scope came first States.5 like one, involved attempt failed accord sentencing. showed merely judge, presence generally, 'Did you want something?' response question, rather spoken. Recognizing accorded must extended himself, relief, largely that: 'A record, unlike play, unaccompanied stage directions tell significant cast eye nod head. well himself apprised chose exercise through counsel.'6 reached spite fact Government's brief expressly conceded 19 But Green, member went so intimate—unless intimation implicit concurring STEWART7—that undeniably disregard Four Court—THE DOUGLAS, I—expressly stated corrected sentences. Court, written FRANKFURTER, emphasized importance saying: most persuasive able might, halting eloquence, himself.'8 true latter joined refusing was: burden showing guarantees, illegal.'9 light statements, surprising Courts First Fifth Circuits regarded combined opinions requiring guarantees.'10 20 think due observance resting they anciently imposed, important justice seems mistaken thinking reflected very cannot agree 'there speak.' According brief, denial injurious several previous convictions presumably known judge.11 connection, says: 'Petitioner presently seeking those judgments and, indeed, already aside. mitigating evidence, court, might profound imposed.' 21 More importantly, value particular not, rule force plainly 'illegal.' unhappy wording 35—a adopted submitted approval law—whatever change necessary bring into conformity preferences incorporated explicit its approval. reverse remand allow resentence 32(a). earlier filed claimed prevented government agents appealing conviction. motion. order directed Cir., 256 957. After different denied. affirmed. 268 203. 'would constitute se rendering illegal.' 303, 655. established Act claiming released law, move Parker, Limiting Abuse Habeas Corpus, F.R.D. 171. Appeals, since Hayman decision, appear consistently understood substantive See, e.g., Larson 275 673 (C.A.5th Cir.); Black 269 38 (C.A.9th Taylor 229 826, 832 (C.A.8th Kreuter 201 33, (C.A.10th Cir.). Van Hook 609, 823, 821 direct disregarded mandate part: time.' As pointed out, 'was codification existing remove created Mayer, 235 55, 67, 16, 18, 129, expiration term entered.' 455 Compare supra. invoked situation unanimously 'the face.' 418 (Court opinion), 422 separate Petitioner's originally Since must, appropriate, also considered 35, entitled discussed course mean permits based mere errors. applies conviction, protects retains guilt proper. Cook 171 567, 570—571. arraignment, including impaneling return verdict, except rules. *' 567; Crowe 200 526. Cf. Williamson 265 236, 239. Similarly, corrective extends insane Byrd Prescor, 163 775. Duggins 240 479, 483—484. Id., 304—305, cf. Stewart's 420, concurred. 304, 305, Domenica 292 483; Jenkins 293 96. 32(c) presentence investigation report use 'shall contain *.' normally way itself, defendant's chance explain rebut evidence will often

Classification Label: 0