Legal Document

474 U.S. 231 106 S.Ct. 555 88 L.Ed.2d 537 UNITED STATES, Petitionerv.Fernando ROJAS-CONTRERAS. No. 84-1023. Argued Oct. 9, 1985. Decided Dec. 16, Syllabus Respondent was indicted by a federal grand jury on February 18, 1983, for felony illegal entry into the United States and reentry deported alien, he having been previously convicted "on or about December 17, 1981." Appearing through counsel respondent arraigned, trial set April 19, 1983. When it noticed that date of previous conviction actually 7, 1981, jury, 15, returned superseding indictment identical to original except corrected conviction. then moved 30-day continuance trial, contending 18 U.S.C. § 3161(c)(2)—which provides shall not commence less than 30 days "from which defendant first appears counsel"—required new preparation period following return indictment. The District Court denied motion, convicted. Appeals reversed, holding entitled period. Held: Speedy Trial Act, 3161(c)(2) is part, does require be restarted upon filing Pp. 234-237. (a) That this Congress' intention evident from unambiguous language clearly fixes beginning point as appearance counsel, refer indictment, much any This conclusion further supported 3161(c)(1), establishes outside time limit within must explicitly refers one relevant dates determining limit. 234-235. (b) requirements were met here, where between respondent's afforded twice long minimum required 3161(c)(2). P. 236. (c) prejudiced did nothing correct 236-237. 730 F.2d 771 (CA6 1984), reversed. BURGER, C.J., delivered opinion Court, in WHITE, MARSHALL, POWELL, REHNQUIST, STEVENS, O'CONNOR, JJ., joined. BLACKMUN, J., filed an concurring judgment, BRENNAN, joined, post, p. 237. Patty Merkamp Stemler, Washington, D.C., petitioner. Judy Clare Clarke, San Diego, Cal., respondent. Chief Justice BURGER Court. 1 We granted certiorari resolve conflict Circuits1 whether Act 1974, 3161 et seq., amended, prohibits commencement after arraignment indictment; assuming violation case, error harmless? 2 * On respondent, who citizen States, country sentenced year's imprisonment. After serving his sentence, Mexico. 3 Again, 13, entered illegally apprehended Border Patrol agents. sitting Southern California two-count charging with under 8 1325 alien 1326. stated judgment prior entry, formed predicate enhancement offense felony, "rendered 1981. appearing arraigned 4 March 21, Government informed conviction, all respects 1981."2 5 Later day at pretrial conference, scheduled begin next construed Ninth Circuit v. Arkus, 675 245 (CA9 1982), indictment.3 motion continuance, citing Seventh Circuit's decision Horton, 676 1165 (CA7 distinguishing Arkus. States. 6 its Harris, 724 1452 turn relied Citing Daly, 716 1499 1983), held reversal remedy because "any shorter thirty inadequate per se. No showing prejudice required." 7 certiorari, 469 1207, 105 1167, 84 319 (1985). reverse. II Our starting point, course, statute. amended 1979, inside limits commencing criminal cases. Section 3161(c)(2), provision issue provides: 9 "Unless consents writing contrary, expressly waives elects proceed pro se" (emphasis added). 10 statute counsel. It Given language, we have no choice but conclude Congress intend run 11 finds additional support 3161(c)(1). section limit: 12 "[T]he charged information commission seventy (and making public) has appeared before judicial officer court such charge pending, whichever last occurs" 13 clear knew how provide computation periods relative Had intended recommence date, would so provided. 14 Because expression congressional intent, need resort legislative history section. note, however, wholly consistent our reading included enacted 1975 incorporated 1979 amendments Act. Amendments Pub.L. 96-43, 93 Stat. 327. revisions suggests source Guidelines issued Judicial Council Second Circuit. See Hearings S. 961 1028 Senate Committee Judiciary, 96th Cong., 1st Sess., 122, 386-436 (1979). assist judges interpreting provisions Id., 386. These provided "whenever exceed (30) days, . view request adjournment beyond sixty (60) limit, liberally. ." 392-393. also that, situation adds charges, charges "within information." 417. Taking these two statements together, although concerned given least enough itself restarting 15 Applying facts here. record reflects occurred commenced until was, therefore, 16 In concluding do hold always compelled go places broad discretion grant when necessary allow preparation. 3161(h)(8) authorizes judge if "the ends justice served taking action outweigh best interest public speedy trial." authority "ends justice" should take care case seeks operates defendant. 17 Here initial recited had rendered phrase read Even prepared about" nevertheless change. Since prohibit address question Court's refusal requested harmless error. 19 Appeals' construction ignored plain frustrate basic purpose manifest very title: error, 20 Reversed. 21 whom BRENNAN joins, judgment. 22 I concur result reaches therefore today holds mandate defense-preparation agree strongly guided express But find neither particularly nor helpful, refrain joining opinion's statutory analysis. 23 term "superseding indictment" second absence dismissal first. nowhere seems assume will precede issuance second. §§ 3161(d)(1) 3161(h)(6). counsel," can only inquiry. may interpreted defendant's ultimately goes Despite fact assistance,1 are task structure 24 "gave effect Federal right Sixth Amendment acknowledged danger society represented accused persons bail prolonged time." H.R.Rep. 96-390, (1979), U.S.Code Cong. & Admin.News pp. 805, 807. To accomplish goals, strict each stage process. requires brought 70 For those cannot order prepare case. 25 process linear fashion, addresses indictments occur, unlike dismissed defendant, thereafter reindicted, both 70-day anew. 3161(d)(1). contrast, Government, continue proviso during outstanding excluded calculation. difference treatment protects against governmental circumvention speedy-trial guarantee. 26 Neither reindictment applies demonstrate, operate tandem; runs anew, other. either start permit period, could lead surely Congress, namely, there trial. avoid possibility, argues simply continuing Act's comprehensive list exclusions counsels failure exclude certain considered calculation, recognition exclusion arise scheme. 27 light intent bring defendants quickly make little sense restart whenever Frequently, used drop parties or, minor correction, leaving evidence defend them unaffected. kinds changes create time; indeed, some instances, lessen defense burden. Where type issued, permits without unnecessary delay. 28 Like fully recognize add burden preparing event material changes, well time. Under seek court.2 3161(h)(8)(A). available occasioned otherwise. Indeed, mandated basis granting deny reasonable effective preparation." 3161(h)(8)(B)(iv). constitutional assistance meaningless forced adequate prepare. prejudicing meaningful possibility alteration adjustment planned defense. courts bear mind analyze impact explore options presents precludes.3 29 assures quickly, undermining Constitution's guarantee upholds essential promise Compare Guzman, 754 482 (CA2 1985), cert. 84-1604; Rush, 738 497 (CA1 denied, 470 1004, 1355, 378 (1985); Williford, 727 1106 (CA5 893, 270, 83 206 (1984); 459 1201, 103 1184, 75 431 (1983); Todisco, 667 255 1981), 455 906, 102 1250, 71 444 (1982), Rojas-Contreras, 1984). Feldman, 761 380 1985). disclose why amendment Respondent's argued needed consult fingerprint expert review immigration file. However, ultimate related, i.e., person arrested 1981 same, stipulated As observes, ante, 235, notion might adequately genesis (Guidelines). (1979) (Hearings). enacting amendments, adopt Guidelines; fact, rejected Guidelines' discretionary opting instead mandatory fundamental Guidelines, latter's details help today's decision. event, answer us. them, contains Hearings, plainly instructs contained run. suggest clock restarted. Ibid. obvious modified sort us treated same charge, silent accord opportunity ran jeopardize Government's ability Following enactment Conference recommended precisely advised district use scheduling ensure circumstances particular case." Administration Criminal Law (1981).

Classification Label: 0