Legal Document

507 U.S. 234 113 S.Ct. 1199 122 L.Ed.2d 581 Jose Antonio ORTEGA-RODRIGUEZ, Petitioner,v.UNITED STATES. No. 91-7749. Argued Dec. 7, 1992. Decided March 8, 1993. Syllabus* In United States v. Holmes, 680 F.2d 1372, 1373, the Court of Appeals held that "a defendant who flees after conviction, but before sentencing, waives his right to appeal from conviction unless he can establish absence was due matters completely beyond control." Relying on authority, and without further explanation, court issued a per curiam order dismissing petitioner, failed appear for sentencing following federal narcotics charges, recaptured filed appeal. Held: When defendant's flight recapture occur appeal, former fugitive status may well lack kind connection appellate process would justify an sanction dismissal. Pp. 1203-1210. (a) This Court's settled rule dismissal is appropriate when convicted during "the ongoing process," see Estelle Dorrough, 420 534, 542, n. 11, 95 1173, 1178, 43 377, amply supported by number justifications, including concerns about enforceability court's judgment against fugitive, see, e.g., Smith States, 94 97, 24 L.Ed. 32; belief disentitles relief, Molinaro New Jersey, 396 365, 366, 90 498, 498-499, 586; desire promote "efficient . operation" protect "digni[ty]" court, Estelle, U.S., at 537, S.Ct., 1175; view threat deters escapes, ibid. 1203-1205. (b) The foregoing rationales do not support all appeals fugitives are returned custody they invoke jurisdiction tribunal. These justifications assume some between process, sufficient make reasonable response. both while case pending district necessarily attenuated often will apply. 1205-1208. (c) does hold entirely authority dismiss because predating since it possible actions defendant, though might have impact warrant sanction. As this reaches Court, however, there no indication in record made such under standard here announced. Application Holmes rule, as formulated lower thus far, require fugitivity necessary; instead rest nothing more than faulty premise any act judicial defiance, whether or affects punishable 1208-1210. Vacated remanded. STEVENS, J., delivered opinion which BLACKMUN, SCALIA, KENNEDY, SOUTER, JJ., joined. REHNQUIST, C.J., dissenting opinion, WHITE, O'CONNOR THOMAS, James Robert Gailey, Miami, FL, argued petitioner. Amy L. Wax, Washington, DC, respondent. Justice STEVENS Court. 1 1373 (1982), cert. denied, 460 1015, 103 1259, 75 486 (1983), Eleventh Circuit dismissed petitioner's appeal.1 Because we previously considered be deemed forfeit fleeing granted certiorari. 504 ----, 112 2964, --- ---- (1992). 2 * early evening November 1988, Customs Service pilot patrolling Cay Sal Bank area, located midway Cuba Florida Keys. Approximately 30 miles southwest Sal, observed low-flying aircraft circling over white boat dropping bales. boat, described 40 50 feet length, with plane retrieving bales water dropped. flying altitude 2,500 feet, visibility less optimal, unable identify name boat. Mieres-Borges, 919 652, 654-655 (CA11 1990), 499 111 1633, 728 (1991); Report Recommendation Ortega-Rodriguez, 88-10035-CR-KING (SD Fla., Feb. 23, 1989). 3 morning, another found Wilfred, resembling one spotted approximately 12 hours earlier. just off beach 30- 40-foot sport-fishing vessel. Upon making discovery, first flew drop point identified night before, away, activity. Returning stacked beach, Wilfred underway headed toward Cuba. 4 alerted captain Coast Guard cutter, intercepted, boarded, searched Wilfred. He narcotics, weapons, other incriminating evidence Nevertheless, three members crew convince were fishing dolphin, although large similar vessels frequently so area. F.2d, 655-657, 659-660. 5 Petitioner arrested, tried, possession intent distribute, conspiring possess five kilograms cocaine. After trial, District set June 15, 1989, date sentencing. did sentenced absentia prison term 19 years 7 months, followed supervised release.2 Though codefendants appealed their convictions sentences, behalf. 6 arrest, 11 months later, May 24, 1990, apprehended. indicted guilty contempt court3 failure appear.4 Pursuant Sentencing Reform Act 1984, 18 U.S.C. § 3551 et seq., imposed sentence 21 served completion cocaine offenses 3-year release.5 While petitioner indictment disposed two codefendants' appeals. affirmed reversed insufficient guilt doubt.6 Also taken into custody, attorney "motion vacate resentencing," motion acquittal. denied latter former, vacating entered convictions.7 then resentenced 15 8 5-year period release.8 timely final judgment.9 On same insufficiency rationale underlying reversal codefendant's should apply case, precisely admitted defendants. Without addressing merits contention, Government moved Government's based fact had become initial "[u]nder holding cannot now challenge 1989 conspiracy distribute cocaine."10 order, dismiss. II 9 It has been century justice pendency Supreme applied time 32 (1876), escaped remained petition arose Under these circumstances, explained, could assurance prove enforceable. concluded "clearly within our discretion refuse hear criminal error, party, suing out writ, where respond render." Ibid. subsequent occasions, gave dismissals defendants cases Bohanan Nebraska, 125 692, 1390, 31 854 (1887); Eisler 338 189, 69 1453, 93 1897 (1949).11 10 Enforceability not, only explanation offered rule. 586 (1970), additional justification prisoner's appeal: "No persuasive reason exists why proceed adjudicate sought review escapes restraints placed upon him pursuant conviction. escape strip its character adjudicable controversy, believe call resources determination claims." then, allowing fugitives' rested part concerns, "disentitlement" theory construes tantamount waiver abandonment. 13 That ensuring sole also evident state provisions regarding prisoners' Allen Georgia, 166 138, 17 525, 41 949 (1897), upheld fugitive's refusal reinstate recapture, longer issue. We 377 (1975), upholding constitutionality Texas statute providing automatic voluntarily returns days. Although dismissed, resolving problems, were, held, reasons Referring own Molinaro, supra, "similar ends. discourages felony encourages voluntary surrenders. promotes efficient, dignified operation Criminal Appeals." 1175-1176 (footnotes omitted). 14 went consider irrational prisoners fled custody. Citing "peculiar problems posed prisoner id., not. distinct implicated justified special appeals: "Texas free deal severely those simultaneously invoked returned, permitted law. each class escape, very midst invocation returning commencing process. If adopt policy prisoners, clear is, likewise impose severe sanctions whose reasonably calculated disrupt themselves motion." Id., 541-542, 1177-1178. 16 Thus, consistently unequivocally approve process." Moreover, justifications. addition (1887), serves important deterrent function advances interest practice. 1175. What remains consideration mandating invokes III 1982, persuaded reasoning extended "former fugitive," prior notice appeal.12 recognized relied distinguishable, "because involved filing appeal." (emphasis added). satisfied, disentitlement "is equally forceful sentencing." 1374. expressed concern absent dismissal, prejudiced delays proceedings resulting presentencing escapes.13 differs key respects. First, course, flee courts, pending. Second, unlike mandate entire whenever invoked. fairly construed errors occurring retain errors, lose convictions. 1373.14 Finally, announced appears rather exercise discretion. See supra. view, like far them. Our rules adopted courts supervisory capacity limited scope, demand represent reasoned exercises courts' authority. Thomas Arn, 474 140, 146-148, 106 466, 470-471, 88 435 (1985). Accordingly, advanced response.15 coincides 20 There instance, question reference animated followed. A presents risk unenforceability; control throughout issuance judgment. Cf. Gordon, 538 914, 915 (CA1 1976) (dismissing "unlikely [the] party unfavorable decision"). Similarly, many cases, independent 1175, recaptured. true give rise "flurry extraneous matters," requiring divert attention it. Puzzanghera, 820 25, 26 (CA1), 484 900, 108 237, 98 195 (1987). put "additional trouble," 26, least usual course events, escape. "flurry," along concomitant delay, likely exhaust itself tribunal enters picture.16 22 Nor operate court. said "flouts" escaping, disrespect. See, DeValle, 894 133, 138 (CA5 1990); Persico, 853 134, 137-138 (CA2 1988); Ali Sims, 788 954, 958-959 (CA3 1986); London, 723 1538, 1539 (CA11), 467 1228, 104 2684, 81 878 (1984). Indeed, Molinaro's demonstrated disrespect legal processes claim." 959; 498-499. proposition employ operates affront dignity proceedings. 23 problem flouted Appeals. contemptuous manifested directed entirety period. Therefore, cited above, defend dignity, sanctioning defiance occurred solely domain. Anagnos, 1, 1988) (declining follow "misconduct affect consequences ours"). accept expansion allow conduct exhibited aspect system, even 1205-1206, 15. Such sweep too broadly, permitting, absconded day proceedings, once violated condition parole probation. None calls result, decline today approach.17 extent rests justifies 1374, sustained. 25 Estelle's deterrence rationale, offers little Once vested must flow consequences, deter. Until time, quite capable defending jurisdiction. deterred wide range penalties available judge. Katz 920 610, 613 (CA9 1990) (when "disentitlement doctrine stand alone escape"). ineffective, situated punishment. access blunderbuss tailor finely calibrated Most obviously, separate offense Code, nn. 3-4, adequately vindicates public deterring safeguards imprisonment release, serve purposes.18 merit Circuit's punishment flight. Snow, 748 928 (CA4 1984).19 surely compel result. 27 Stewart noted 544-545, 1179, introduces element arbitrariness irrationality escape.20 Use as, practical effect, second almost certain produce disparity 198421 Guidelines intended eliminate.22 28 conclude substantial interests, interests fugitives, system. Absent provided generally 29 ignore possibility For reason, example, Circuit, formulating long if ended delay onset locating witnesses presenting retrial successful 1374; 137. recognize might, instances, premised evidence, falls, event reversal, type prejudice misconduct level somehow "meaningful impossible," otherwise imposed. classes cases,23 necessary. Here, prevented consolidating codefendants, normal 654, (noting appeal). deems consequence significant interference today, properly applied. us, necessary today; instead, 1207. saw fit reflect narrower circumstances define. below—either dismiss, order—that present obstacle orderly review. duplication hearing separately codefendants—which minimized reliance earlier panel decision 1202, 6—sufficiently disruptive response, facts announce today. leave remand.24 33 short, contempts best sanctioned itself. subject Molinaro. 34 vacated, remanded consistent opinion. 35 So ordered. 36 Chief whom O'CONNOR, THOMAS join, dissenting. 37 holds that, general, coincide disagree. difference absconds preappeal postappeal "distinction" strong enough holding, much chance proper functioning occurs obtains consequence, timing agree "connection" disagree conclusion breaks connection.1 38 dispute power create enforce "procedural governing management litigation." 146, 470, limit violate Constitution statute, light designed address. 470-471. argument employed violates constitutional Abney 431 651, 656, 97 2034, 2038, 52 651 (1977). inconsistent 1291, grants section forth procedural requirements perfecting Those Federal Rules Appellate Procedure local Rule 47, "governing practice" either through rule-making adjudication. 39 protect. declined appealing absconding, forfeited "call 499. And mandated invoking discouraging encouraging surrenders, promoting "efficient, Both idea reviewing ensure efficient use resources. basis, required simply counsel files appeal.2 fallacious suggest effect case. especially mere Yet concedes, must, situation. Ante, 1204-1205; (1897). If, eventually resentenced, sentence, consequently amount managed elude law enforcement authorities. startled assertion "any picture." 1206. opportunity file appeals, jurisdictional defect, entertain At least, result increase docket blow organization predictability. disruption docketing procedures qualitatively different caused factors settlement parties. Unlike turn up unexpected down road. burden increases exponentially abscond preappeal, manner. fails explain how obvious disappears 42 instant thwart administration forcing severance, precious resources, raising spectre judgments. delayed (counting used resentence petitioner). During heard decided codefendants. 652 (1990), (1991). fled, consolidate conserve created real Petitioner's "imposed exactly absconding." Brief 21. Had behalf large, prejudice. Since adverse principled able administration, surrender. Due effects flight, occurs, Unfortunately, today's To deciding makes choice simple. happens get caught expired, still persuade judge him. refuses, disadvantage automatically extinguish 44 permitting interrupts protects respect lodging flouts integral part. Surely mean argue intends Quite intention returning, voluntarily. His therefore demonstrates equal Viewed light, "finely response" ante, 1207, vindicate enhanced far-fetched hypotheticals, exist vacuum. outlined functioning. 45 recognizes requires exception throws wrench workings 1208-1210, narrow. limits creates "significant 1209. Translated, applies hampered, " 'meaningful [is] impossible' ", involves multiple defendants, thereby causing forced severance. grudging concession include sheer lone 46 sum, inherent docket. Fugitivity exception. obstructs exercised. judgments, syllabus constitutes prepared Reporter Decisions convenience reader. Detroit Lumber Co., 200 321, 337, 282, 287, Appeals' merely stated GRANTED," actually citing Holmes. App. 78. 68-71, 1538 (CA 11), (1984), construe routine application Title 401(3) provides: "A shall punish fine imprisonment, discretion, none other, [d]isobedience resistance lawful decree, command." 3146 provides, relevant part: "(a) Offense.—Whoever, having released chapter knowingly — "(1) conditions release; "(2) surrender service order; punished subsection section. "(b) Punishment.—(1) "(A) person charge of, awaiting certiorari "(i) death, life more, title ten years, both; "(ii) "(iii) felony, "(iv) misdemeanor, year, "(B) appearance material witness, both. consecutive offense. "(c) Affirmative Defense.—It affirmative defense prosecution uncontrollable appearing surrendering, contribute creation reckless disregard requirement surrender, appeared surrendered soon ceased exist." 58-63. dispositions explained post-arrest statement F.2d., 660-661, viewed 663-664. represents identically codefendant reversed, distinction cases. take issue representation, maintains 28, 7. 10. 51-56. 57. sequence events somewhat unusual. resentencing, barred applicable resentence. Entry judgment, noticed treated "sentencing" purposes occasion comment propriety absentia, 70-71. Justices Eisler, noting rendered moot Eisler's believed exercised decide importance presented. 194, 1455-1456 (Murphy, dissenting); 195, 1456 (Jackson, dissenting). Sharpe, 470 675, 105 1568, 84 605 (1985), despite respondent's status, remand directions proceeded merits. 681, 2, 1573, 2. 688, 1576-1577 (Blackmun, concurring); 721-723, 1594-1595 (Stevens, purposes, together, dates normally days another. Fed.Rule App.Proc. 4(b); 9, supra; Torres Oakland Scavenger 487 312, 314-315, 2405, 2407-2408, 101 285 (1988) (discussing mandatory nature limits). Cases 10-day interval resolved easily: concludes; absence, straightforward Should return appeal—in words, begin end later—then principles purely creature waived "or abandonment postpone conviction." 1373-1374. explained: "Such untimeliness meaningful impossible government obviously retrying case." "We control. waive alleged connected reasonableness dissent notes, post, 1211, authorizes promulgation courts. illustrates way scheduled 1989. until January 1991. Supra, 1202-1203. 11-month culmination months. hand, unaffected reschedule already docketed delay. But here, regular schedule convenience. lapse precedes translate, itself, borne Even note, seems unprepared extreme position. indeed acts exempt scope 1373; 1205. Whether Holmes' logically supportable, (questioning logic distinction), reflects acknowledgement wielded indiscriminately all-purpose weapon misconduct. 1202. "The condoning [defendant's] justice. However, presumes constitute crime, i.e., 'escape custody.' refrain punishing [defendant] twice 930, 3. "[T]he imposes totally punishments application. felon violation law, loss results serving erroneously trial reversible all. disparate dependent whatever sentences meted invalid convictions." 544, 1179. 3551, §§ 991-998. Mistretta 488 361, 109 647, 102 714 (1989) purpose Guidelines). relies heavily legitimate avoiding "spectre judgments," preserving "precious resources." Post, 1211. remembered, administering evenhanded dissent's proposed disposition 15-year evidence. individual, case-specific basis. always discretionary, sense "strip controversy," (1970); developing cover specific, recurring situations. general petitions come large. (1876). appeals—including Neither nor mandates uniformity among circuits approach rules. Thomas, 157, 476 (STEVENS, circuit meet threshold requirement, vary considerably operation. hesitate matter what leads severance various strikes basis "it appeals," 1209, overbreadth context. Broadrick Oklahoma, 413 601, 610-611, 2908, 2915, 830 (1973) (overbreadth "courts roving commissions assigned pass validity Nation's laws"). legally struck down. affirm remanding. wording gives rules, supports requirement: "Each action majority judges active amend practice regulate manner rules." 47

Classification Label: 0