Legal Document

391 U.S. 234 88 Supreme Court Reporter 1556 20 United States Reports Lawyer’s Edition 2d Series KF101.8 U54 554 James Pacific KF135 P2 CARAFAS, Petitioner,v.J. Edwin LaVALLEE, Warden. Number 71. Argued March 27, 1968. Decided May 20, Judge Cally, New York City, for petitioner. Miss Brenda Soloff, respondent. Mr. Justice FORTAS delivered the opinion of Court. 1 This case has a lengthy procedural history. In 1960, petitioner was convicted burglary and grand larceny in state court proceedings sentenced to concurrent terms three five years. On direct appeal (following Mapp versus Ohio, 367 643, 81 1684, 6 1081 (1961)), claimed that illegally obtained evidence had been introduced against him at trial. The Appellate Division affirmed conviction without opinion, People Carafas, 14 A.D.2d 886, 218 N.Y.S.2d 536 (1961), as did Appeals, 11 N.Y.2d 891, 227 926, 182 Northeastern N59 413 (1962).1 denied petition writ certiorari. Carafas York, 372 948, 83 944, 9 973 (1963). 2 Thereafter, complex took place which sought both federal courts obtain relief by habeas corpus, based on his claim seized used him. ex rel. LaVallee, Cir., 334 Federal Reporter, 2nd 331 (1964); certiorari denied, 381 951, 85 1798, 725 (1965). November 5, 1965, District Court, directed Appeals Second Circuit (334 (1964)), heard petitioner's merits. It dismissed ground he failed show violation Fourth Amendment rights. Petitioner appealed circumstances hereinafter related. appeal. 1967, filed here. We granted 389 896, 211, 19 213 (1967), consider whether, because facts we later refer, Appeals' dismissal conformed our holding Nowakowski Maroney, 386 542, 87 1197, 18 282 (1967). But first must State's contention this is now moot unconditionally released from custody. 3 applied corpus June 1963. He custody time. 6, sentence expired,2 discharged parole status since October 4, 1964. issued 16, 1967 (389 213). 4 issue presented, then, whether expiration sentence, before application finally adjudicated while it awaiting appellate review, terminates jurisdiction with respect application. Respondent relies upon Parker Ellis, 362 574, 80 909, 963 (1960), unless overruled, stands an insuperable barrier further consideration cause or grant corpus. 5 Ellis held when prisoner prison after having served full could not proceed adjudicate merits unconditional release became 'moot.' announced per curiam decision.3 clear moot. consequence conviction, cannot engage certain businesses;4 serve official labor union specified period time;5 vote any election State;6 juror.7 Because these 'disabilities burdens (which) may flow from' 'a substantial stake judgment survives satisfaction imposed him.' Fiswick States, 329 222, 67 224, 230, 91 L.Ed. 196 (1946). account 'collateral consequences,'8 Ginsberg 390 629, 633—634, n. 2, 1274, 1277—1278, 195 (1968); supra, 10, S.Ct., 230; Morgan, 346 502, 512—513, 74 247, 253, 98 248 (1954). 7 issue, however, posed mootness technical constitutional sense, but statute defining judiciary persons available present case, custody, be For reasons here summarize are stated length dissenting opinions conclude under statutory scheme, once attached defeated prior completion such 8 requires applicant 'in custody' filed. required only repeated references statute,9 also history great writ.10 Its province, shaped guarantee most fundamental all rights,11 provide effective speedy instrument judicial inquiry into legality detention person. See Peyton Rowe, 54, 1549, 426.12 does limit discharge physical mandate broad granted. provides '(t)he shall * dispose matter law justice require.' 28 Code KF62 § 2243. 1966 amendments seem specifically contemplate possibility other than immediate At one point, new 2244(b) (1964 ed., Supp. II), speaks 'release remedy.' supra; Walker Wainwright, 335, 962, 1215 (1968). Cf. Ex parte Hull, 312 546, 61 640, 1034 (1941). 10 shortly 1963, until two weeks During intervening various courts. entitled its suffering, will continue suffer, serious disabilities law's complexities fault, if meritorious. There no need statute, Constitution, sound jurisprudence denying ultimate day court. illustrates validity THE CHIEF JUSTICE'S criticism doctrine simply aggravates hardships result 'intolerable delay(s) affording justice.' 585, 909 (dissenting opinion). 1960. attempting litigate ever since. His path long partly inevitable delays processes requirement exhaust remedies.13 should thwarted bear consequences assertedly unlawful so sentence.14 require result, overruled. 12 turn substance question Petitioner's hearing 1965.15 illegal search seizure. certificate probable pursuant 2253 ordered notice prepayment prescribed fee. A filed, order allowing forma pauperis. 1915. State opposed leave pauperis moved dismiss merit. reply July motion renewed plea February 3, entered following order: 'Application Leave Proceed Forma Pauperis. Application denied. Motion granted.' Rehearing thereafter action brings decision (April 1967). 13 Nowakowski, 'when district judge grants (of cause), appeals (assuming requisite showing poverty), disposition accord ordinary procedure.' 543, 1199. Although decided appeal, applies proceeding which, like one, concluded time decided. Eskridge Washington Prison Board, 357 214, 78 1061, 1269 (1958); see Linkletter Walker, 618, 628, 13, 639, 1731, 1737, 1743, 601 (1965); Tehan Shott, 382 406, 416, 86 459, 465, 15 453 (1966). argues denial were permissible entire record respondent's contained some argument Nothing indicates duly considered cases where necessarily give parties opportunity submit briefs despite issuance, cause, frivolous, enough appear demonstrate basis court's summary action. Anything less this, would negate office cause. Indeed, appears accorded effect ruling. informs us 'it policy have dismissed, reargument reinstated apply expired Nowakowski.' Brief respondent 22—23. Accordingly, below vacated remanded consistent opinion. 16 ordered. 17 Judgment remanded. MARSHALL part case. HARLAN STEWART, concurring. joined 963, persuaded what there wrong insofar even though man initiates proceeding, power final adjudication claims depends remaining Consequently concur 21 notes views discussed separate concurring Parker, id., 576, 911, changed. amended remittitur reflect passed claim. 969, 229 417, 183 North Eastern 697 (1962). bail earlier (March 18, 1963). JUSTICE JUSTICES BLACK, DOUGLAS, BRENNAN dissented. E.g., Education Law, McKinney's Consol. Laws, chapter §§ 6502, 6702; General Business Consol.Laws, 74, subd. 2; Real Property 50, 440—a; Alcoholic Beverage Control 3—B, 126. 73 Statutes-at-Large 536, 29 504. Election 17, 152, 2. Judiciary 30, 596, 662. Undoubtedly others. generally Note, Civil Disabilities Felons, 53 Va.L.Rev. 403 2241, 2242, 2243, 2244, 2245, 2249, 2252, 2254. W. Holdsworth, History English Law 108—125 (1926). Article 39 Magna Carta (see 112—125). inquire violations Constitution. If been, be, can made detention, jurisdiction. 582, 8, 914 (Warren, C.J., dissenting); Baez, 177 378 (1900); Rivera Reeves, 246 F.Supp. 599 (D.C.S.D.N.Y.1965); Burnett Gladden, 228 527 (D.C.D.Ore.1964). through process, 973. 1963 began quest prejudice, suggesting, view thought unsettled law, reapply so, apparently same Circuit. second reversed (1964). 1965. 1966. rehearing 21, 1967. 213, about seven years conviction. Thomas Cunningham, 335 (C.A.4th Cir. 1964). supra.

Classification Label: 0