Legal Document

346 U.S. 502 74 Supreme Court Reporter 247 98 L.Ed. 248 UNITED STATEv.MORGAN. Number 31. Argued Oct. 19, 1953. Decided Jan. 4, 1954. Miss Beatrice Rosenberg, Washington, D.C., for petitioner. Mr. Jacob Abrams, Brooklyn N.Y., pro hac vice respondent by special leave of Court. Justice REED delivered the opinion 1 This review on certiorari requires us to decide whether a United States District has power vacate its judgment conviction and sentence after expiration full term service. 2 On December 18, 1939, pleaded guilty federal charge, in Northern New York, was given four-year which he served. Thereafter, 1950, convicted York court state sentenced longer as second offender because prior conviction,1 is now incarcerated prison. 3 As courts State will not judgments other jurisdictions habeas corpus or coram nobis, People versus McCullough, 300 N.Y. 107, 110, 89 North Eastern Reporter, 2nd Series 335, filed an application writ error nobis gave notice motion where his first received. Both sought order voiding conviction. The ground violation constitutional rights through failure, without competent waiver, furnish him counsel. Johnson Zerbst, 304 458, 58 1019, 82 1461. unreported decision treated proceeding under 28 Code KF62 § 2255, Annotated KF65 U5 2255,2 refused relief it had no jurisdiction applicant custody sentence, citing Lavelle, Cir., 194 Federal 202, controlling authority that point. appeal, Appeals reversed. It held 2255 did supersede 'all remedies could be invoked nature common law nobis.' considered remedy kind justified hearing alleged 'of fundamental character,' reversed and, passing upon sufficiency allegations, directed remand further proceedings. Morgan, 202 67, 68. Deeming conflict with Kerschman, 7 201 682, we granted certiorari. 345 974, 73 1122. 4 foregoing summary steps discloses respondent's uncertainty respect choice remedy. papers are labeled though they but indicates sought. In behalf unfortunates, should act doing justice if record makes plain right relief.3 We think belated effort set aside criminal case shown. therefore treat adequately presenting enabling trial properly exercise jurisdiction. Adams ex rel. McCann, 317 269, 272, 63 236, 238, 87 268.4 So treating motion, Rule 35, Fed.Rules Crim.Proc., 18 U.S.C.A., allowing correction 'an illegal at any time' inapplicable. Sentences subject rule those authorize.5 5 Since this ancient specifically authorized statute enacted Congress, grant such relief, exists, must come from all-writs section Judicial Code.6 originated Judiciary Act 17897 substance persisted Revised Statutes, 716, Code, 262, present form upholding judicial attain suitors procedural forms 'agreeable usages principles law.'8 If there issue writs section, hold would comprehend take cognizance nobis. See, note supra. To move instead purely procedural. question then gives employ 6 available correct errors fact.9 allowed limitation time facts affect 'validity regularity' judgment,10 used both civil cirminal cases.11 While occasions use were infrequent, one doubts availability law.12 Coram continuous although limited also our states.13 Although scope often described references instances specified Tidd's Practice, see 9, supra, been means so limited. House Lords 1844 took objection based failure swear witnesses. See O'Connell case, 11, used, States, statutory always reference scope—for example, inquire imprisonment slave imprisonment, insanity defendant, plea coercion fear mob violence, advise counsel.14 An interesting instance Errors found Davis Packard, 8 Pet. 312, 957. Errors, approved Court, fact apparent face record' court, wit, consul-general King Saxony exempt suit court. discussed applicability Mayer, 235 55, 35 16, 59 129. There defendant discovered fault his, only end convicted, misconduct assistant attorney concealed bias juror against him, defendant. direct consideration expired remedy, any, new trial. applicable circumstances Mayer say ever lie courts.15 clerical term. Wetmore Karrick, 205 141, 154, 27 434, 438, 51 745. However, have courts. than ours, difference Chief Marshall Strode Stafford Justices, 23 Fed.Cas.No.13,537, Page Brock. 162, overruled fourteen-year-old death party rendition. explication, pointed out 1789, Statutes-at-Large 84, 22, five years bringing forbade 'for fact.' showed referred appeal examined except Courts Sixth Ninth Circuits claims insanity.16 Third Fourth made similar rulings cases this.17 Fifth Circuit remanded inquiry into movant's allegation witnesses coerced officers commit perjury testifying him.18 many taken motions denied them make available.19 few consider denied.20 9 contention Title 28, U.S.C., providing prisoner 'in custody' may imposed it, Constitution laws States,' construed cover entire field compelling reason reach conclusion. Hayman, 342 205, 219, 72 263, stated purpose 'to meet practical difficulties' administration added: 'Nowhere history Section do find impinge prisoners' collateral attack their convictions.' know nothing legislative different enactment bar motion. 10 Continuation litigation final exhaustion waiver extraordinary action achieve justice. suggestions Government's brief justify procedure unknown judge. youth lack counsel known, argued, unavailable. One finds statements knowledge judge occasionally literature nobis.21 Such attitude reflect deliberate known subsequent reliance defaulted right.22 apparently shows Morgan 69. He alleges nineteen, advised rights. barren reasons brought about legal representation accused.23 'guilty' details appear. Cf. DeMeerleer Michigan, 329 663, 67 596, 91 584. cannot thus rely allegations. 11 said included most character'.24 Under 468, 1024, 1461, decided conviction, intelligent bars accused.25 Where deduced waived, think, being sound existing seek appropriate earlier heard court.26 Otherwise wrong stand uncorrected right. Of course, absence showing does itself invalidate judgment. presumed proceedings burden rests accused show otherwise. page 1024; 281, 242; cf. Darr Burford, 339 200, 218, 70 587, 597. 12 served, results persist. Subsequent convictions carry heavier penalties, affected.27 invalid entitled opportunity attempt invalid. 13 Affirmed. 14 MINTON, whom CHIEF JUSTICE, JACKSON CLARK join, dissenting. 15 & N Dec. Immigration Nationality Decisions am unable agree resurrecting limbo presumably relegated 60(b), F.R.Civ.P. assuming A emphasize my doubting wisdom action. 16 respondent, guilty, four years' each eight counts charging divers violations (now §§ 1702, 1708, 1708) 347 500, 500). sentences ran concurrently fully served during never questioned validity. crime, attempted burglary third degree, State's multiple Offenders Law.1 1939 relied bring within offenders statute, making possible increased offense. Respondent imprisoned pursuant sentence. 17 Approximately fourteen months more twelve completed, 'Application Writ Error Nobis' convicted. requested 'be aside, vacated, declared null void' since neither assistance nor informed counsel, nineteen age law. allege innocence charges forth inferred. And explanation prolonged delay seeking asserted rights, intimated suffering some disability result holds validity offense inquired into, long punishment satisfied, 'motion nobis' whenever account imposing crime. basis highly unusual 1651(a), provides that: 19 'The all established Congress necessary aid respective agreeable law.'2 20 majority procedures open case. But convinced countenance Two essential prerequisites issuance lacking: (1) here (2) principles' present-day 21 That appears obvious. received satisfied thereunder, control Therefore, believe exhausted, functus officio, attack, just generally when satisfied. Gillen 199 454; Bergdoll 279 KF105 F3 404.3 Insofar shown here, consequences ended hence also. Ex parte Lange, Wall. 163, 85 872; Plumer, Fed.Cas. 16,056, Pages 561, 573—574. Tinkoff 129 21, 23. Writs issued already regain exhausted. 268; Whitney Dick, 132, 26 584, 50 963; M'Clung Silliman, Wheat. 598, 340. anything, appear professed inability serving laws.4 22 prerequisite—that law—I view resort precluded, matters involved here. Smith, 331 469, 475, 1330, 1333, 1610; 129; Port Washington Brewing Co., 277 306. judgment, which, probably prevented judgment.5 probability prime requisite success writ. sentencing facts. What didn't produced result? doesn't say, suggest how lawyer might helped unless picked lock jail house door.6 Proceedings obtain nature,7 judgments.8 60(b) Civil Rules expressly abolishes prescribes attacking shall provided independent Six grounds 60(b),9 thereunder year mistake, newly-discovered evidence, fraud, 'within reasonable bottomed grounds. 24 Leaving advanced sufficient timely commenced, these instituted entry even one-year period applicable. explain unreasonable face, absent Moore, 166 102, 105; Farnsworth U.S.App.D.C. 121, 198 600; Bice, D,.c., 84 F.Supp. 290, affirmed, 177 843. 25 Apparently, having once abolished undertakes reestablish name 'a escape limitations laid down 60(b). inapplicable rather separate, proceeding. indication 'application' intended several retain character modern practice.10 inapposite, superseded enacting 2255.11 Reviser's Note clear, 'restates, clarifies simplifies nobis.'12 H.R.Rep. 308, 80th Cong., 1st Sess. 180. 214—219, 269—272. comprehensive attacks judgments, supplied had. fit extend persons attacked, feel free so. still therefore, ought available. course serious crime lifelong handicap. dozen ways person who reformed, offended again, constantly endeavored lead upright life prejudiced thereby. stain reputation threaten social standing job opportunities, example. Is cases? devised either wide every ex-convict lives else returned want expunged lessen Either alternative seems unwarranted me. important principle redressing deprivations clashes point become final—that eventually end. These conflicting traditionally accommodated permitting imposed, 2255. changed, it. Penal Law, McK.Consol.Laws, chapter 40, 1941. 2255: 'A claiming released impose excess maximum law, otherwise vacate, sentence.' 203—204, 589, 590, 94 761: commands general recognition safeguard citizen Nation protection effective unlettered prisoners friends funds, disregarded legalistic requirements examining applications judged simple test entitle relief.' step not, like separate record, beginning Proceeding. Kurtz Moffitt, 115 487, 494, 148, 149, 29 458. chancery writs, Stephens, Principles Pleading, 3d Amer. ed., 142, accepted American practice. Pickett's Heirs Legerwood, 144, 147, 638; 151, 436, 745; step, Civ.Proc., abolishing cases, applies. same Note. 684. contra above note, Kemnetz, 296 Ill.App. 119, 883. Bradford, 197, 201; Tinder 565, 911. 1651(a): law.' Note: revised extends jurisdiction, explicit powers implied creation courts.' 81—82: 'That before-mentioned scire facias, corpus, specially jurisdictions, * *' Alkali Export Association 325 196, 201, 65 1120, 1124, 1554; Beatty, 232 463, 467, 34 392, 394, 686. Practice (4th ed.) 1136—1137: 'if King's Bench erroneous matter only, quae resident; called, founded process, remain lord king, before king himself; age, appeared attorney, plaintiff married woman commencing suit, died verdict, interlocutory judgment: judges reversing own So, Bench, default clerks, nobis: *.' Pleading (3d ed.), 143; 2, Bishop, Criminal Procedure (2d 1181. citations n. 10, Fed.Cas.No.16,056, 572, Clifford; Queen, Cl. Fin. (House Reps.) 155, 233, 252. Archbold (7th Chitty, 1840) 350, 389; Holdsworth, History English Law (1903) 224. collection article Abraham L. Freedman, Esq., Temple L.Q. 365, 372. Bronson Schulten, 104 410, 416, 797. Toney, Mo. 661; Adler State, Ark. 517; Sanders Ind. 318; Hogan 1, 68 849. discussion Judge Stanley Haw. Hawai‘i Reports KFH45 A2 Fuld, Nobis, L.J. issues June 5, 6, 7, 1947; Cornell 596. Spence Dowd, 145 451; Hysler Florida, 315 411, 316 642, 62 688, 86 932; Taylor Alabama, 335 252, 1415, 92 1935; Green 355 Ill. 189 Northeastern KF135 N59 500. '* assumed certain fact, district cases—as incident granted—a correctional terms analogous exercised (See 2d 1369), express opinion, scope; existed, stated, character; is, rendered irregular invalid.' 69, 19. 797; Phillips Negley, 117 665, 673, 901, 904, 1013. 1610, slight need substitutes. Allen 162 193; Robinson Johnston, 118 998, 1001, vacated 649, 1301, 1732. Roberts 158 150; Steese, 144 439. Monjar, 64 746. Garrison 154 106, 107; Pierce 848. 21; Barber 142 805; Spaulding 155 919; 102; Crowe 169 1022; Bice 843; Rockower, 171 423; 600. Strang 53 820, 821. 682; Gilmore 199. 56 Yale 233; 598; Brown Allen, 344 443, 486, 397, 422; Gayes 332 145, 3, 1711, 1713, 1962; 1286. Until uniform practice orders judges' conclusion 439, 443. 15, 805, 807; Powell, Appellate (1872) 108; Black, Judgments 460. Walker 312 275, 61 574, 830; Glasser 60, 457, 680; Fed.Rule Crim.Proc. 44. pages 485—486, 421—422. Fiswich 211, 224, 196; 786. Emphasis added. collected C.J.S., 1668; C.J., 3326, 3327. know, moreover, modify offencer questioned, later vacated. 67—69, 18—19; 1732, grounds, 130 202; Temp.L.Q. 365. expanded provide vehicle redress denials usually traditional affording inadequate. 415, 690, N.Y.L.J. 2212, 2230, 2248; Note, Ind.L.J. 529; 39 Ky.L.J. 440. 102. 883; Meyer Youngblood, 221 408, 48 55; Cutsinger Spencer, 219 41 601; Ray, 111 Kan. 207 Pacific P2 192; Elliott Commonwealth, 292 Ky. 614, 167 South Western 703; 682. 1606(a). Tom Tong, 108 556, 871, 826. 'Mistakes; Inadvertence; Excusable Neglect; Newly Discovered Evidence; Fraud, etc. just, relieve representative order, following reasons: inadvertence, surprise, excusable neglect; newly evidence due diligence 59(b); (3) fraud (whether heretofore denominated intrinsic extrinsic), misrepresentation, adverse party; (4) void; (5) released, discharged, equitable prospective application; (6) justifying operation judgment.' cited

Classification Label: 0