Legal Document

512 U.S. 339114 S.Ct. 2291129 L.Ed.2d 277 Orrin S. REED, Petitioner,v.Robert FARLEY, Superintendent, Indiana State Prison, et al. No. 93-5418. Supreme Court of the United States Argued March 28, 1994. Decided June 20, Rehearing Denied Aug. 24, Syllabus* The Interstate Agreement on Detainers (IAD), a compact among 48 States, District Columbia, and Federal Government, provides that trial prisoner transferred from one participating jurisdiction to another shall commence within 120 days prisoner's arrival in receiving State, Article IV(c), directs dismissal with prejudice when does not occur time prescribed, V(c). Petitioner Reed was April 1983 federal prison state custody pursuant an IAD detainer lodged by officials. Trial charges originally set for date 19 beyond 120-day period subsequently postponed additional 35 days. Although Reed's many wide-ranging pretrial motions contained few general references limit, he did specifically object his until four after expired. court denied petition discharge grounds judge had previously been unaware limitation earlier objected or requested speedier trial. then successfully moved continuance enable him prepare defense. After conviction October 1983, unsuccessfully pursued appeal sought postconviction relief Indiana's courts. He petitioned writ habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. relief, Appeals affirmed. Held: judgment is 984 F.2d 209 (CA 7 1993), Justice GINSBURG delivered opinion respect Parts I, III, all but final paragraph Part IV, concluding court's failure observe IV(c)'s rule cognizable 2254 defendant registered no objection at it set, suffered attributable delayed commencement. Because failed make requisite showing prejudice, cannot tenably maintain Sixth Amendment speedy right violated. See Barker v. Wingo, 407 514, 530, 92 2182, 2192, 33 101. properly considered "fundamental defect" standard forth Hill 368 424, 428, 82 468, 471, 417. urges applies only prisoners 2255, This Court's decisions have recognized, however, that, least where statutory violations are issue, 2255 mirror each other operative effect, see Davis 417 333, 344, 94 2298, 2304, 41 109; controls collateral review — both §§ statute, Constitution, basis attack. See, e.g., Stone Powell, 428 465, 477, n. 10, 96 3037, 3044, 49 1067. There reason afford like Reed, who let clock run without alerting court, yet deny similarly situated. Pp. ____, ____. GINSBURG, joined THE CHIEF JUSTICE O'CONNOR, concluded II IV available check comply IV(c). That qualify as defect which inherently results complete miscarriage justice, [o]r omission inconsistent rudimentary demands fair procedure." Hill, supra, U.S., S.Ct., 471. When obscures prescription avoids clear has run, unwitting judicial slip kind involved here ranks similar nonconstitutional lapses proceeding. id., 429, 472. alert expired, cause consider whether contemplated would if presented timely request IAD's period, nonetheless refused reservation question, together status law Indiana, mutes concern courts might be hostile stake. SCALIA, THOMAS, agreed test 417, appropriate evaluating alleged standard's application broader than principal suggests. class procedural rights necessary avoid "a justice," numbered "the procedure," doubt small one, null set. If there ever technical rule, limit IV(c) Detainers. Declining obvious produces confusion: violation technicality, intentional unintentional, relief. J., announced REHNQUIST, C.J., JJ., joined, joined. filed concurring part judgment, BLACKMUN, dissenting opinion, STEVENS, KENNEDY, SOUTER, Jerold Solovy, Chicago, IL, petitioner. Arend J. Abel, Indianapolis, IN, respondents. O'CONNOR join. 1 18 U.S.C.App. 2, Government. It enables gain incarcerated jurisdiction, order try criminal charges. "shall commenced hundred twenty good shown open . having matter may grant any reasonable continuance." V(c) states dismissed prejudice. 2 petitioner this case, Scott made tried year, following postponements explained presence court. raises question prisoner, asserting limitation, enforce action 3 We hold Accordingly, we affirm Appeals. 4 * In December 1982, while serving Terre Haute, prison, charged theft habitual offender status. authorities detainer1 against and, 27, took him. thus instructed absent continuance, before August 25, 1983. 5 At two conferences, 1, discussed (who chose represent himself) prosecutor number needed trial, opening date. 27 conference, July deadline submission threshold said wished file, September 13 exceeded neither nor called attention judge, asked different indicate preference out jail bond (or own recognizance); informed released weeks 13, unless revoked "good days" credits, case paroled 14. App. 39; 76. 6 noted imminent release bond. Id., 76-79. response, $25,000. Also, because calendar conflict, reset 19. 79-81.2 inquired about witness subpoenas books procedure, again, nothing conference express Interspersed written oral provisions 28-31, 44 (alleging illegality transfer pre-transfer hearing); 46 (asserting provide hygienic care V). refer commencement three during period; indeed, these very day conference.3 none motions, mention contrast, 29, statement citation. "Petition Discharge," custody, therefore violated IV(c);4 consequently, urged, mandated immediate release.5 petition, explaining: 8 "Today first I aware Detainer Act. its setting moving forward, filed, anything nature setting, urging done guidelines out." 113-114. 9 morning commence, 19, motion saying preparation. 128. A newspaper article published listed names persons jury duty 1954 1980 frame prior felony convictions. Concerned jeopardize fairness offered options: (1) start schedule; (2) postpone week; (3) continue late third option, 134, 142, began 18; convicted theft, found offender. received sentence years conviction, 30 terms consecutively. 10 affirmed 491 N.E.2d 182 (1986). Concerning specified stressed timing pleas court: vigorously urged (particularly, asserted hearing advance custody), 184-185; 67-74. "The relevant times [Reed] should were reset," concluded. N.E.2d, 185. 11 courts, corpus. petition. Examining record, significant amount delay [Reed's] behalf"; chargeable held, excludable period. Clark, Civ. 90-226 (ND Ind., Sept. 21, 1990), 188, 195-196. 12 Seventh Circuit (1993). Preliminarily, recognized IAD, although law, also "law States" meaning 2254(a). 210. Nonetheless, held unavailable IAD-speedy arguments remedial contentions rejected 1067 (1976), concluded, "establishes proper framework claims IAD." F.2d, 213. Stone, exclusionary devised promote police Fourth suspects, applied defendant's arguments. granted certiorari, 510 ----, 114 437, 126 371 (1993), resolve conflict Courts availability claims.6 obtain "only ground Constitution laws treaties States." 2254(a) (emphasis added). Respondent initially argues voluntary interstate agreement, "la[w] Our precedent, settled issue: indeed well. Carchman Nash, 473 716, 719, 105 3401, 3403, 87 516 (1985) (§ holding "is congressionally sanctioned Compact Clause, Const., Art. cl. 3, subject construction"); Cuyler Adams, 449 433, 438-442, 101 703, 707, 66 641 (1981) ("congressional consent transforms into States"). 14 statute. Adopting framework, Reed. holds not, 2254, claim evidence unconstitutional search introduced "an opportunity full litigation [the] courts." 469, 3043. concentrated purpose rule." 481, 3037. emphasized decision confined scope generally: 15 "Our today concerned statute authority litigating constitutional generally. do reaffirm judicially created remedy rather personal right, emphasize minimal utility proceeding." 495, 37, 3053 original). 16 "repeatedly declined extend original bounds." Withrow Williams, 507 113 1745, 123 (slip op., 5) (1993) (holding apply rests statements obtained safeguards Miranda Arizona, 384 436, 86 1602, 694 (1966)).7 precedent already place suffices adopt Circuit's Stone-based rationale. 17 stated error qualifies fundamental [or] (1962); accord, Timmreck, 441 780, 783, 99 2085, 2087, 60 634 (1979); 346, 2305, 109 (1974). providing nationally uniform means transferring between jurisdictions can effectuated interpretation. 214 (Ripple, denial rehearing banc). Therefore, argument undermined State's resisted steadfast enforcement, total insulation review, force. Cf. 526, 3067 (Brennan, dissenting) (institutional constraints preclude overseeing adequately law). gives us confront Davis, scarcely exists. An example, 2255,8 based sentencing present information mitigation punishment, required Rule 32(a) Rules Criminal Procedure. petitioner, assert sentencing, point stressed: "[W]e dealing affirmatively speak imposed. Nor suggested imposing Judge either misinformed uninformed circumstances. Indeed, say formally invited speak." 20 "[W]hen formal requirements" 32(a), "collateral available." Ibid. But left "[collateral] occurred context aggravating circumstances." 21 controlled our aside guilty plea. complainant Timmreck accepted plea inform him, Procedure, faced mandatory postincarceration special parole term. attack, observing technical, "resul[t] 'complete justice' proceeding 'inconsistent procedure.' " 784, quoting "As Hill," unnecessary "[postconviction] 784-785, 2088. 22 lacks "aggravating circumstances" rendering 'the need afforded apparent.' Bowen Johnston, 306 59 442, 446, 83 L.Ed. 455 (1939). chances wanted 1993. opportunities pass by. hearings rescheduled, limit; indicated imprisonment, due Then, 124th day, longer possible meet deadline, produced meticulously precise Discharge." 4.9 23 As observed, "instead burying demand flood documents, [trial] could complied requirements." 209-210. further elaborated: 24 "During several including government turning over treatment fell short state's obligations V(d) (h). fact fall outside allowed often require litigants flag important issues orally bury vital (and easily addressed) problems reams paper, did. E.g., Fed.R.Crim.P. (requiring distinct instructions); cf. 12(b) (a district orally). difficult finding record cause, satisfied never came up, overlooked problem." 25 regards Appeals' description conduct, even true, irrelevant. maintains dictates result must reach, passed.10 instructs indictment pending" i.e., dismiss prescribes. address discrete review. governed instead principles generally controlling great writ. 212. Referring those guides, particularly decisions, conclude III 26 entitled provision "effectuates right," guarantee Brief 26. maintains, treated satisfying standard, mere error. insubstantial for, concedes, way Tr. Oral Arg. 7. 54 suggest ability defense prejudiced delay. plausibly such claim.11 more "fair meaningful," 128, himself scheduled opening. establish Speedy ingredient entirely missing here. 2191-92, (1972) (four factors figure determination claims; "prejudice defendant"). More strenuously, seeking 2255,12 doubted "§ intended effect." Far suggesting inapplicable cases, assume For recalled established claims" follows: "[N]onconstitutional raised constituted ' justice." 471.13 29 nevertheless suggests invoked sole reason: "So far convictions concerned, will service appeal." Sunal Large, 332 174, 178, 67 1588, 1590, 91 1982 (1947) same "general rule," Where raise direct establishes "cause" waiver shows "actual resulting violation." Wainwright Sykes, 433 72, 84, 97 2497, 2505, 53 594 (1977); 87, 2506-2507. Francis Henderson, 425 536, 542, 1708, 1711, 149 (1976) (" 'Plainly interest finality regard prisoners. give greater preclusive effect defaults defendants defendants.' ") (quoting Kaufman 394 217, 228, 89 1068, 1075, 227 (1969)); Frady, 456 152, 167-168, 102 1584, 1594-1595, 71 816 (1982) (collateral procedurally defaulted "cause actual prejudice" brought 2255). 31 contends prisoners, unlike their counterparts, "had meaningful claim." 34. stake muted considerations. First, reserved prescriptions disregards application. 9. Second, Indiana. Ind.Code 35-33-10-4 noted: "We suppose seeks undermine Indiana." 211. 32 reasons stated, 34 Affirmed. whom THOMAS joins, judgment. 36 join except II, last (which incorporates some analysis II). agree (1962), ante, disagree what seems me (in II) too parsimonious standard. 37 long equitable limitations narrow broad sweep jurisdiction. 1765-1770, (SCALIA, part). One consists substantive restrictions upon type entertained. reviewed alleges justice Most violations, they "in circumstances," simply enough invoke extraordinary 783-785, 2087-2088, (1979). 38 concludes unobjected-to Act 'a procedure,' she declines decide altered "[i]f IV(c)," To latter conducts how waived rights. issue avoided avoiding (when answer so obvious) invite misunderstanding test. guaranteed includes Due Process Clauses), interjurisdictional single participate select 39 Timmreck's clearly reference circumstances defendant, thereby elevating requirements judge's behavior willful egregious. think wrong failing them fashion, exist. says, entitle consist waived. Surely sucks life Hill.* accept GINSBURG's suggestion interpretation counsel favor nonwaiver situation. why suffice purpose, most contexts. 708-709, (1981). importantly, intent, seek altering disposition Court, individual judges, appellate questions, supreme States. 40 one. produce confusion declining obvious: analogous lack convicting violation, procedures. addition exercise imposed restrictions. (the correlative prisoners), claim, heard below, (1982). And ordinarily entertained 227, 8, 1074 ---- (1969); Withrow, 1765 7-9) part) (collecting cases lower uniformly followed dictum). Together, rules mean normally dispositive 42 note my view precludes state-prisoner less federal-prisoner reaffirms, '§ effect.' Ante, 166, 1593. Otherwise (state direct, habeas, 2254) Since used readjudicate fully litigated claims. 43 SOUTER join, dissenting. allows challenge acknowledges, must, (IAD) (1985); 706-709, addition, respondent concedes 37. Nevertheless, appears serious warrant fails according announces today. 45 purports relying "precedent place," referring "principles writ," face, reach nearly far, extension unwarranted principles. seriously, Congress' unambiguous severity of, limits. respectfully dissent. A. 47 Hill-Timmreck line cases. (1974); 174 (1947); Despite professed narrowness ultimate holding, reflects certain assumptions judgments withstand close analysis. Each relied majority defects Before today, precedents bar petition.1 now discussion appreciation policy concerns shape courts' discretion While stray remarks opinions equivalents,2 indications contrary, see, event, sound refrain treating identical. Primary importance forum prisoners' claims, ensure enforcement rights, uniformity law.3 1593, (1982), "federal ., forums." claiming serve satisfy backstop catch correct errors evaded courts.4 Thus, determined "where 'say' determine relief.' 1074, (1969) (citation omitted). Under limited correction defects" "omission[s] principle, short, egregious, cover covered 50 primary claimed were, necessity, addressed Brown Allen, 344 443, 508, 73 397, 469 (1953) (opinion Frankfurter, J.) permit "last say" questions law); Vasquez Hillery, 474 254, 106 617, 88 598 (1986) exhaustion courts). anticipate undertake independent work fairly litigated. Wright West, 505 112 2482, 225 (1992) (O'CONNOR, judgment) (affirming mixed de novo court).5 Even recognize valid limiting substantial error, petitioner's sift through fine screen provide. 51 Similarly, prudential justifications Hill's error" differ proceedings. appeal, virtually however minor, violate "law" context, impracticable allow since forum. hardly surprising, therefore, screening device, sorts developed 2255. implicates Constitution. On occasions Congress proceedings, alone counsels approach warrants enforcement.6 52 difference roles statutes play proceedings points danger attendant uncritical read disfavor class. ____ (reading proposition "[m]ost jurisdiction"). distinction exaggerated 2255,7 justification language itself permits "of By terms, then, equally violations. construing civil actions actors "deprivation privileges, immunities secured laws" phrase 'and laws,' says." Maine Thiboutot, 448 4, 100 2502, 2504, 65 555 (1980) (refusing construe "and equal protection laws); Hague CIO, 307 496, 525-526, 954, 968-969, 1423 (1939) "include[s] privileges well Constitution"). Section enacted contemporaneously shares common making settings. placing par largely indifferent statutes. Moreover, preserved differently so. exclusive province legislatures, reflect congressional national interests determination, interests. 55 clear, drawn Davis," support 56 putting misgivings specific, believe insurmountable, obstacle applying IAD. "unwitting cognizable," overlooks seriousness "slip" consequences. 57 spoke unmistakable clarity prescribed limits trying whose jurisdiction.8 consequences bring 58 event indictment, information, complaint provided hereof, pending enter dismissing thereon cease force Quite simply, all. undermines majority's reasons. imposition drastic sanction forecloses somehow "technical" trivial rarely seen (violation right); Oregon Kennedy, 667, 2083, 72 416 Double Jeopardy Clause). fact, countless allowed, required. However assessed "fundamentality" absence sanction, directive leave free violating Fed.Rule Crim.Proc. 11, 61 Surely, troubling severe become utter later determines magic words moment, requirement untimely deprive curious, least, sort "quasi-default" Such two-tiered "default" unwarranted, knowledge, unprecedented.9 411 233, 239, 6, 93 1577, 1581, 216 (1973) (finding "difficult conceptualize purposes corpus"). 62 mandate constrain supervisory powers remedy, habeas.10 Nothing cast remedy. require." 2243. words, prerogative exercised accord legislative command. IX, (directing "[a]ll agreement detainers cooperate party enforcing effectuating purpose"). saves falling below fundamentality line. 63 sum, faithful reading custody. Faced impose 64 word emphasis conduct "relevant" moments. objections mitigates "unobjected-to" reduces level itself. explained, denigrate significance violation. possible, theory default. untenable, consideration given repeated attempts protections. "upon defendant," much date." Instead, unambiguously breached. arguably puts responsibility applicable choice make. Judges prosecutors players expected know straightforward simple calculation outset defendant. constructive notice Fulton County signed certified temporary transmitted "for accordance Detainers." 5-6 stated: "I propose person [information] [IAD]." 5. assuming, protections, Mauro, 436 340, 98 1834, 329 (1978), "failure [IAD] specific waiver" 364, 1849 instead, prosecution "on substance" inmate's "persistently trial" "sought bringing causing prison." 365, 1849. less. 68 May 9, appearance appearing counsel, halfway house detainer. 12. acknowledged "world difference" jail. observed incarceration rendered incapable preparing 54. 69 prefer future writing. responded, want writing," better listen." 39-40; (noting motions). Conforming request, 26, requesting "trial legal 56. Clarifying concerns, complained "forcing [him] Act," "request[ed that] extensions guidelines." pro se 70 Three later, stating "limited laws." 88. ran out. Finally, prompt "Detainer limits" "approaching." 91. being writing, indicating desire 182, 185 put demands. matter, so, once, times, wholly penalize singles moment.11 matter. invoked, denied, limit. authorizes whatever require. requires indictment. entertaining syllabus constitutes prepared Reporter Decisions convenience reader. Detroit Lumber Co., 200 321, 337, 282, 287, 499. agency institution incarcerated, asking notify imminent." (1985). posted corporate surety thereupon incarceration. 148. Petition Relief Violations (filed 1983), id. (requesting [IAD]"); Revision Pre-trial Procedure (seeking charges, referring, inter alia, laws"); Subpoena Depositions Examination, Production Documentary Evidence "as soon approaching limits"). 94. Specifically, wrote: "That detained contrary procedure: 35-33-10-4, 4(c) (120) state. ." prosecutor, pointed "any continuance," 113. expressed relationship 180-day provision. 114; infra. provision, III(a), 180 prosecuting receipt Fex Michigan, 1085, 122 406 rationale approaches taken addressing Articles III(a). Some alerted provisions. category, constitute (1962). Reilly Warden, FCI Petersburg, 947 43, 44-45 (CA2 1991) (per curiam); Fasano Hall, 615 555, 558-559 (CA1 1980). Other specifications Seymore Alabama, 846 1355, 1359-1360 (CA11 1988); Kerr Finkbeiner, 757 604, 607 (CA4 1985). Still reached merits Birdwell Skeen, 983 1332 (CA5 1993) writ, III(a) spite compliance rule); Cody Morris, 623 101, 103 (CA9 1980) (remanding resolution factual dispute limit); ex rel. Esola Groomes, 520 830, 839 (CA3 1975) IV(c)). Kimmelman Morrison, 477 375-377, 2574, 2582-84, 305 (Stone ineffective assistance counsel's file suppression motion); Rose Mitchell, 443 545, 559-564, 2993, 3001-04, 739 (1979) racial discrimination selection grand foreman); Jackson Virginia, 307, 321-324, 2781, 2790-92, 560 process insufficiency supporting conviction). text part, 12, Ford, 550 732 1977), aff'd sub nom. "[timely and] vigorous protests," government-requested continuances, months 735. period's expiration. infra, part: "[I]n "Had everything proceeded contend prosecutor's hands slipped fingers) 1983." pertinent "A move vacate, sentence." Addonizio, 442 2235, 805 (1979), reiterated governs citing Stone: "[U]nless attack remained limited. 3044 justice.' ___ 185, 2240, Many (Ind.1986), prevent Odom, 674 228 1982). Perhaps, effort jurisdictional caused her merits. notes, cited case. rested considerations unique rule. relies, instance, remark 343, 2304. statement, parry restricted dimension," grounded "laws" guide jurisdictional, prudential, "sweeping" breadth "tempered restraints accompany discretion"). practical uniformity. 1749, ("Of course theoretically certiorari. obviously, mode limitations") sentence, step separate action. Advisory Comm'n Note, Governing Proceedings. SCALIA proposes foreclose litigate proposal substitute be, borrow phrase, "suc[k] [§ 2254]." (concurring opinion). heart law. With notable exception, 486-496, 3048-3049, "full litigate" supra; (1986); (disputing courts" deferential habeas). "miscarriage justice" claim. bypassed endorsed 1590-1591, (1947), "do 428-429, 471-472 "apposite" reasoning Sunal, "[w]ise administration counseled permitting supplant appeals); 2087-2088 (seeing "no allowing 'to appeal' 1590-1591); 'provided regular, orderly method correction' 'granting vesting certiorari jurisdiction' permitted bypass method, '[e]rror deemed sufficiently adequate acquire new implications' 181-182, 1592-1593). jurisprudence default 2506-2507, (1977), "are enough," commands every sentenced. 471-472. validity ask represented attorney wishes behalf. 2087. These narrowly encompassing rules. "important" "merely technical" identical 345-346, 2304-2305, (1974): "[T]here holdings merely 'laws States' course, example appeal.' Thus stand attacks Rather, implication seem particular regarded contention assertion command qualifications. shown, present, VI(a) provides: "In determining duration expiration dates periods articles running tolled whenever unable matter." relies qualification, quasi-waiver None presents situation sufficient preserve wanting purposes. McCarthy 459, 464, 468-472, 1166, 1169-1170, 1171-1174, 418 (1969), contrary. McCarthy, looked varying responses noncompliance requiring, powers, comparable because, challenged not. Court. requiring differing disregarding directive. "clarity" deliberately obscured run. mention, access materials. ordered sheriff 85. books, thereafter draftsmanship improved.

Classification Label: 0