Legal Document

417 U.S. 333 94 Supreme Court Reporter 2298 41 United States Reports Lawyer’s Edition 2d Series KF101.8 U54 109 Joseph Anthony DAVIS, Petitioner,v.UNITED STATES. Number 72—1454. Argued Feb. 26, 1974. Decided June 10, Syllabus After being declared a delinquent, petitioner was ordered to report for induction pursuant Selective Service regulations, which permitted the ordering of delinquent even though he had not been found acceptable military service. When did as ordered, prosecuted and convicted failure induction. Following remand by Appeals reconsideration in light intervening decision this Gutknecht versus States, 396 295, 90 506, 24 532, District concluded that affect conviction, affirmed. While petitioner's petition certiorari pending Court, decided Fox, 454 Federal Reporter, 2nd 593, wherein, on authority Gutknecht, court reversed conviction based facts virtually identical those based. This subsequently denied case. beginning his sentence, brought collateral proceeding under 28 Code KF62 § 2255, asserting Fox case effected change law Ninth Circuit after affirmance holding required be set aside. The summarily relief. affirmed ground because unsuccessfully litigated issue direct review, court's earlier 'the case' precluded from securing relief 2255 basis an law. Held: 1. Even legal raised prior appeal determined against petitioner, is raising 'if new has made . since trial appeal.' Kaufman 394 217, 230, 89 1068, 1076, 22 227. Pp. 341—342. 2. fact claim grounded 'in laws States' rather than Constitution does preclude its assertion proceeding, particularly permits federal prisoner assert confinement violation or States.' Sunal Large, 332 174, 67 1588, 91 L.Ed. 1982, distinguished. 346—347. 3. raises cognizable proceeding. 472 596, remanded. Marvin M. Karpatkin, New York City, petitioner. Edmund W. Kitch, Chicago, Ill., respondent. Mr. Justice STEWART delivered opinion Court. 1 involves availability criminal upon substantive question presented relatively narrow one, it arises result complicated chain events. 2 * In February 1965, Davis, classified I—A draft board pre-induction physical examination. Davis failed appear appointed date. He later informed local due illness. Although attempted arrange second date physical, attempts communicate with were frustrated keep apprised correct mailing addresses. As result, board's communications returned stamped 'addressee unknown,' again physical. December sent warning considering declaring him physical.1 communication also unknown.' 3 another unsuccessful attempt 32 Regulations 1642.4(a) (1967),2 both current address.3 At same time mailed delinquency notice. Shortly declaration, order directing into Armed Forces. Once again, Several months later, St. Paul, Minnesota, address used when requesting duplicate card. there no indication receive order, once ordered. resulted prosecution 50 U.S.C.App. 462(a).4 4 issued 1631.7(a) (1967) provided registrants could only they '(had) service Forces (had) (them) Statement Acceptability at least 21 days before fixed induction.' Since, yet appeared examination determine acceptability, quite obviously neither one these requirements satisfied. regulation, however, went provide 'a registrant Class I—A—O who may selected fill call notwithstanding ..' other similarly excepted prerequisites volunteered proviso, evidently preconditions stated inapplicable whom thus free petitioner.5 5 appealed Circuit. pending, announced 532 (1970). registrant's accelerated delinquent.6 462. accordance portion that, like provision applicable called exceptional treatment delinquent. Local boards authorized 1642.4 declaration '(w)henever perform any duty duties selective law,' civilian work. Both 1642.4.7 held regulations shifting them first priority punitive nature and, such, without legislative sanction.8 Accordingly, comply regulations. 6 remanded 'without limitation scope but especially consideration 432 1009, 1010 On remand, conducting hearing, status therefore conviction.9 appeal, 447 1376. 7 Davis' subsequent 593. circumstances leading Fox's Like 'Fox Board examinations Ibid. Prior receiving never 'acceptable service' (not) '(T)hus 1631.7(b)10 delinquents previous finding acceptability Id., 595. regulation preducated. 8 post-Gutknecht induction, government offered evidence show delinquency.' 'The judge acceleration convicted.' 593—594. Gutknecht. matter (because) (w)ithout have 594. Thus, 'that (induction) illegal created part 9 opposing certiorari, Solicitor General Conceded holdings (Davis) are inconsistent,' nevertheless urged deny conflict intra-circuit (to) resolved itself Supplemental Memorandum Opposition (No. 71—661, O.T.1971). We certiorari. 405 933, 92 939, 30 809. 10 secure rehearing Appeals, remitted custody commence serving three-year sentence. then instituted present '(a) sentence established Act Congress claiming right released imposed move vacate, aside sentence.' motion, asserted motion.11 merits '(t)he case,' 'new law, law' resulting would 'not (be) applied circuit such here presented.' 596. Because presents seemingly important concerning extent available reason we granted 414 999, 351, 38 234. II 11 sole posture propriety Appeals' judgment successfully proceeding.12 our inquiry confined resolution conviction. 12 attack changed issue. General's brief concedes regard 'is consonant Court's Sanders 373 (83 148).13 Sanders, inter alia, motion 'was (the applicant) application,' applicant (nevertheless) entitled hearing showing 1, 17, 83 1078, 148. rule applies determination applicant's instead 227 (1969). erred 13 Nevertheless, contends should affirm 'of constitutional dimension' (Brief 34) outset, note Government's position finds scant support text (Emphasis added.) 14 It argued forcefully dissenting today language, appears paragraph somehow qualified third statute, provides: 15 'If rendered jurisdiction, otherwise open attack, denial infringement rights render vulnerable shall vacate discharge resentence grant appropriate.' 16 dissent REHNQUIST rejects suggestion language 'sentence(s) attack' can encompass violates 'laws States,' contending reduce remaining regarding rights' surplusage. Indeed, nub 'does speak 'confinement' sentences.' Post, 2309. original.) microscopic analysis surely shows statutory somewhat lacking precision, shadow cast over statute totally disappears history. 17 That history makes clear intended afford prisoners remedy habeas corpus. pointed out Hayman, 342 205, 219, 72 263, 272, 96 232 (1952), 'history Section passed instance Judicial Conference meet practical difficulties arisen administering corpus jurisdiction courts. Nowhere do find purpose impinge prisoners' their convictions. contrary, minimize encountered hearings affording more convenient forum.' doubt grounds equivalent encompassed 2254, general '(a person) treaties Furthermore, although derides view words 'otherwise catch-all phrase,' post, 358, fully supports view. recommending what eventually became Committee Habeas Corpus Procedure broadly covers all situations where 'open attack.' remedy, broad corpus.'14 18 No miscroscopic reading escape either simple 2254 authorizing 'on prisoner) unambiguous mirror operative effect. cannot agree fashion designed mark retreat statement encompasses prisoner's conclude sustain claims 2255. 19 Moreover, proposition merely Constitution. true, course, 1982 (1947), nonconstitutional attack. But example writ will allowed 178, S.Ct., 1950. 'Appeals taken cases, not.' 177, 1590. careful point Kulick pursued appellate course failed, cases different. chose pursue had, think now justify saying deemed futile.' 181, 1592. (was) expired.' read stand attacks convictions.15 Rather, implication seem absent particular considerations regarded dispositive case, contention Constitution, 20 say, every error stitution, 368 424, 429, 82 468, 472, (1962), example, 'collateral shown formal requirements' procedure absence defendant prejudiced technical error. suggested appropriate whether claimed fundamental defect inherently results complete miscarriage justice,' '(i)t present(s) need afforded apparent.' 428, 471 (internal quotation marks omitted). suggest line drawn source interpreted affirmed, establishes invalid lawfully order. If well taken, punishment act make criminal. There room circumstance 'inherently justice' 'present(s) circumstances' Therefore, express claim, hold accordingly further proceedings consistent opinion. 23 so Judgment 25 POWELL, concurring part. 26 & N Dec. Immigration Nationality Decisions review dispose finally, it. 27 Petitioner's turns refusing invalidated parties raised, briefed issue, properly us. should, interest judicial economy if reason, decide bring end lengthy litigation, fourth round consideration. my view, reliance misplaced. Petitioner reads invalidating former System possible application.1 espouses per se derived application illegal. sweep. 29 failing retain registration classification papers possession times. surrendered protect Vietnam conflict. consequence rushed—indeed might said railroaded—to entire process lasted less two months, day Christmas, six deprived standing truly 'accelerated' treated normal manner. essence, caught tide actions late 1960's thought avading opposition repeatedly refers deliberately attitude use prevailing means, short prosecution, dealing persons. See, e.g., U.S., 306—308, 511—512. overturning circumstances, depriving reasonable effective alternative recalcitrant plainly seeking avoid rationale Guknecht accepted, insofar punitively advance deprive procedural rights, waived. See Dobie, 444 (CA4 1971). reasons relied Stewart, 314, 515, incompatible proscribing evasive 593 (CA9 1971), relies, incorrectly decided. 31 instant undisputed not, call. patient efforts deal repeated obstruct process, some seven function normally. hint vindictiveness punish Davis. impact delay issuance form letter notifying service.2 portray significant unfairly board. argument frivolous. effort period years accord Thus waived seeks rely. received event reported And hardly major moment, long notice pendency 33 record seriously contend victim action tolerance forbearance. invalidate circumstances. 34 judgment. 35 REHNQUIST, dissenting. 36 holds, minimum discussion, rise contrary principles reaches despite previously considered accelerated. justification suggests permissible panel adopts test determining occurred which, probably outcome Since believe justified nor potential consequences harmful administration justice, dissent. 37 conclusion, discussed infra, actually unnecessary disposition decisions rested entirely 'law theory, Government disavows disposes single paragraph. principally addressed rebuttal judgments contained reply devotes arguing constitutional. highly benefit lower attention question, full briefing, issues involved. preferable anyway, deciding allowing below leaving venture area occasion. declines so, broader proceeds. detail briefly emphasize administrative received. A mere recounting dispels notion equities whatever 39 began 1965 examination, specified schedule advise whereabouts. warned danger notation 40 according effect.1 interval having followed up sending apparently report, refusal. All concede orders Without classification, given faced alternatives. take or, alternatively, continued futile additional notices enabled bypass undesirable options, effect, temporary waiver until noted allow induct anyone examination; simply allows persons given.2 42 Having took court, decision. apply accelerated.3 '(d)efendant's substantial Board's giving Notice Acceptability,'4 give (sic) caused defendant's own October 8, ordered.'5 agreed control affirmed.6 certiorari.7 43 supposed closed point, marked phase one. For sought presenting rejected. principal Circuit, unfavorable charged (1971). comment, affirmed.8 Stating case,'9 specifically overruling Davis,'10 presented. Odom supra (9 Cir., 455 159).'11 Again suppose dispute reached end, decrees otherwise, remanding courts below. III 44 frankly understand, seems largely settled perhaps, too inconsequential require extended treatment. Neither premise sound. very much doubt, calls serious 45 type logical starting place itself. opinion, gives passing nod, believing ambiguity best ignoring arises. closer look. 46 begins discussion stating: 'At States."12 opinion.) quoted reads: excess maximum subject 47 paragraph, 'confinement,' sentences. concerned motions relief, power governed specific provisions three statute. 48 differs strikingly above. providing continues: 49 certainly since, emphasis 'sentence' mention twice, connection ..'13 More importantly, States. Rather 'there disrict section (1) jurisdiction; (2) attack; (3) arguably tests: clearly conviction; concededly within limits vulnerable; accepts Nothing generalized reference therefore, redeem himself paragraph.14 51 strongly rest compounds confusion. To begin with, odd chooses sentences (rather judgments) far closely parallels cited But, event, phrase, including recognizable upsetting convictions difficult see why bothered include separate reasonably argue protection purports distinction between 52 assuming moment approach correct, obstacle definition, lack word 'laws.' accept mentions of. Certainly constitution, treaties, statutes section. Nor prohibits incarceration offense. Therefore believe, lies somewhere Fox. inclusion category attention. 53 term included presumably continue traditional statutes.15 1867, chapter 28, Statutes-at-Large 385, gave writs person restrained her liberty treaty carried forward Rev.Stat. 753 §§ 2241(c)(3) 'law' phrasing incorporated term's longevity corresponding elucidation. many field corpus, left case-by-case basis. 54 creditable 'laws' statutes, individual 1842, passed, stated: 'In ordinary contended Courts constitute laws.' Swift Tyson, Pet. 18, 865.16 allowance lawmaking made, settled. For, immediately disappears. opportunity applicability controlling. modified way scope. real focus must governing regard, overruled pointing en banc necessary result. categorizes Sates' still jurisdiction. 55 loose definition end. surprising Fourth sufficient $2255 me Concededly, binding concern obvious appeals intracircuit conflicts arise. compel already interpretation liberal emerge. erratic warrant IV 56 matched sparsity cites. making cites holds.17 148 (1963), (1969), most recent years, controlling here, involved completely different factual considerations.18 Hill cut position. follow Fed.Rule Crim.Proc. 32(a), promulgated auspices motion. 57 ask represented attorney anything say character magnitude jurisdictional omission inconsistent rudimentary demands fair procedure. 'exceptional apparent." 471. added; citations omitted.) 58 mentioned relevant foundation. suggests, stress negative pregnant, solely raise conclusion. employed substitute proposition. recognizes effect unnecessarily grudging. Hill, situation noncompliance Rule 32(a) imply taken. flatly: 'We 426, 468. 59 remains undefined, introduce unwanted limitation, expansion courts' here. Frankfurter's catalogue Sunal, supra, 185—186, 1594—1595 (dissenting opinion), grounds. dearth errors law.19 Many implicitly limited stature.20 60 foundation proceeds new, expansive collateral-relief doctrine unfortunately prepared extend retract, majority believes 'exceptional' litigant appealing point. barred explicit corpus.' barred, 'far compelling' 471, rejection appeal. succeeds. According different, precise once, curiously enough favorable him, '(t)here (conviction obey possibly order) 2255.' selection rests reasoned distinctions cases. V 61 dismissal arguments understandable importance, likely produce severe repercussions. all, undefined almost continuation state affairs cause unusual difficulties. laissez-faire inappropriate. '(a)ssuming 'exists,' ultimate sense, 'correct' assured tribunal past it: always applied, fashioned.' Bator, Finality Criminal Law State Prisoners, 76 Harv.L.Rev. 441, (1963). Two examples suffice illustrations. 62 occasionally, great frequency, resolve among questions. January 1974, Maze, 395, 645, 603, asked fraudulent credit card violate mail fraud Sixth Tenth Circuits construed narrowly five appeals. Maze approved minority approach, agreeing respondent's reversed. 63 defendants Mail Fraud circuits whose accepted relitigate Most district courts, influx motions, task sifting through various applied. suspect burden inconsiderable. 64 affirming 159 (1972). Wade 426 (1970), insanity 'convictions (which) become final decision.'21 Under else defense proceed file court. Odom's evident other. 65 twofold. First, overburdened increased. Jackson Brown Allen, 344 443, 537, 73 397, 425, 97 469 (1953) (concurring result): 'It prejudice occasional meritorious buried flood worthless ones.' Second, disincentive overthrow doctrines, how salutary ones seem. enlightened jurisprudence adopting policies correcting interpretation, changes constantly aware numerous thereupon placed jeopardy. possible, often undeserved, advantage obtained cost system. 66 These multiplied. Admittedly, threshold claims, requiring "a result(ing) justice," "exceptional (Ante, 346). dictum, hoped, partially offset represents justice hard imagine not. giant step casually, next equally easy take, perhaps challenges evidentiary rulings matters heretofore inappropriate VI explained maxim 'Hard bad hard. Whatever strain contours permit someone visited injustice, stage way. alleged deprivation trial, inability get adequate review. alleges won today. 68 Were persuaded score, nonetheless POWELL ante, Page 347, loses eligibility deferment class ahead registrants.' Certiorari 21a. rescinded shortly pertinent part: Whenever Order Report Induction Civilian Work ., declare delinquent.' Title 1641.4 imposes 1641.1 'to currently writing reach 462(a) provides, part, 'any manner knowingly fail neglect refuse execution title, rules, directions title shall, competent punished imprisonment fine $10,000, imprisonment.' 1641.5 board.' 'Delinquent' typed face. 'Minutes Action' reflect 'as Del.' 1631.7 eligible several factors, age marital status. (1967), entered volunteers declaration. certificate times, 1617.1 1623.5, respectively. said: 'delinquent' standard guidelines. exercised discretion broad, roving authority, absolutism congenial law-making traditions. search vain clues desired sanctions apart prosecutions .. violated registrants, prosecuted. substituted prosecutions, vast rewriting needed.' 306—307, 511. executive secretary testified inducted corroboration, introduced 'delivery lists' dates complied procedures '(h)ad Delinquent, November 15, 1966,' nearly eight finally (July 11, 1967). Between 1631.7(b) moved reduction modification advisement thereafter served four probation remainder original term. contentions, vehicle consider retroactive correctly Appeals. Brief n. 11. 271, (1952). recognized bar 178—179, 182, 1590—1591, 1592, 1982. Cf. 223, 1072, primarily 1642.13 superseded, assigned delinquents. withdrawn, (i) (ii) provided: 'That regulation. maintains above proviso clause, (i.e., physical) Acceptability. noted, dealt delinquents, registrants. 'would July 1967, ordered.' 10a. 9a. 9a—10a. Ante, 342—343. 'A impose seems, terms 'judgment' interchangeably, instances while mean contrasting automatically significance. context historical background abandoning study Sobell, 314 (CA2), cert. denied, 374 857, 1906, 1077 argued, filing three. offers none, encourage exercise. What done proper enacted logistical problems latter remedy. drops examining constituted purposes proved Judiciary 1789, 34, 92, stated, '(T)he states, except orstatutes provide, rules trials common apply.' explaining observed: 'They are, most, themselves laws. They re-examined, reversed, themselves, whenever defective, ill-founded, incorrect.' Pet., 18. fact, avoids necessity look turning guide. curious convincing citation authority. demonstrates standards guide 2, s.Ct., 1070. arises, setting forth make, granted, held. Kaufman, contrast subjected unconstitutional seizure. recognition tenor throughout remedies insure integrity stake,' 225, 1073, (emphasis added), fundamentally relating requires continuing mechanism relief.' 226, 1074 added). 179, 1591, (1947). DeMaro Willingham, 401 105, 106 (CA7 1968); Lothridge 441 919 (CA6 F.2d, 74.

Classification Label: 0