Legal Document

367 U.S. 421 81 Supreme Court Reporter 1563 6 United States Reports Lawyer’s Edition 2d Series KF101.8 U54 940 or Haw. Hawai‘i KFH45 A2 Atlantic LOTT et al., Petitioners,v.UNITED STATES. Number 238. Argued April 18, 1961. Decided June 12, Mr. C. W. Wellen, Houston, Tex., for petitioners. Bruce Judge Terris, Washington, D.C., respondent. Justice WHITTAKER delivered the opinion of Court. 1 This case is concerned with timeliness an appeal from a judgment conviction and sentence in criminal under Rule 37(a)(2) Federal Rules Criminal Procedure, 18 U.S.C.A.1 2 These three petitioners, having been jointly indicted, two others, on five counts District Southern Texas willfully attempting conspiring to evade federal income taxes their corporate employer,2 entered, court accepted, pleas nolo contendere March 17, 1959. But decided that pronouncement its should await conclusion impending jury trial other defendants.3 Soon after rather protracted trial, court, 19, 1959, orally pronounced convicting petitioners sentencing them imprisonment.4 Three days later, 22, formal was prepared, signed by judge filed clerk. The next day, 23, separate 'motion(s) arrest judgment.'5 Those motions were denied July 13. Two 15, notices Appeals Fifth Circuit.6 3 On Government's motion, dismissed appeals as untimely 37(a)(2). 280 Reporter, 2nd 24. It held, effect, that, although there no such express limitation Rules, provisions 377 impliedly modify limit And it concluded * judgment' had, fact, 'been made within 10-day period' entry appealed (Rule 37(a) (2)), cannot be so regarded these because tender acceptance 17 constituted 'determination (their) guilt,' and, inasmuch not 'within 5 (that) determination guilt' required 34, followed timely (2), had 'be taken 10 order from' 37(a)(2)), 30 2—depending upon whether oral 19 22 judgment—and denying motion.' at pages 27 28. Because conflict between circuits question presented8 importance proper administration we granted certiorari. 364 813, 63, 45. 4 Buttressed Lujan versus States, Cir., 204 171, Smith 273 462, holding, similar facts, alone unaffected any prescribes time which must case, further buttressed belief this Court, too, even if sub silentio, exercising jurisdiction, facts virtually identical those here, Sullivan 348 170, 75 182, 99 L.Ed. 210, point captioned 'Time Taking Appeal'; only purports deal subject; does speak days, nor 'verdict finding guilty' 33), 34)— whatever term may mean—and makes reference timeliness, Rule, speaks, but simply says plain unmistakable language 'An defendant tk en from, motion has period Then, pointing admitted fact 'made period'—actually days—after they second day denied, strenuously insist timely. They contend hold have untimely, circumstances, would mutilate make trap wary—including experienced competent counsel who doing best protect petitioners' rights appeal. snare permitted deprive one valuable right his liberty, life, well depend. Though are impressed demonstration argument, also legalisms countervailing recognizing, do, obscurity, inconsistency, exposed need here decide 33 34 specifies taking appeal—but leave problem kindred ones, brought fore resolution rule-making process,9 Robinson, 361 220, 80 282, 259—for sentence, contendere, meaning 34. And, thus, view, 37(a)(2), appeal, motion,' Although said plea means literally 'I do contest it,' Piassick 253 658, 661, 'is mere statement unwillingness more,' Mickler Fahs, 243 515, 517, admit 'every essential element offense (that is) pleaded charge.' Lair, 8 195 KF105 F3 47, 52. Cf. Frankfort Distilleries, 324 293, 296, 65 89 951. Hence, tantamount 'an admission guilt purposes case,' Hudson 272 451, 455, 47 127, 129, 71 347, 'nothing left render judgment, obvious reason face issue exists, none can while remains record,' Norris, 281 619, 623, 50 424, 425, 74 1076. Yet itself constitute hence guilt.' confession well-pleaded charge. dispose case. still up 'to thereon. supra, page 425. At before imposed—i.e., judgment—the withdrawn, consent court. Rul 32(d), Fed.Rules Crim.Proc. Necessarily, then, court—not plea—that constitutes Apart below, cited found none, holds intimates contrary. 7 In view disposition jurisdictional question, alternative contentions treated 12(b)(2) Procedure (see Finn 256 304; 306; Hotch 9 208 244, 250; Holmes, D.C.S.D.Tex., 110 F.Supp. 233, 234), vacate sentences 28 Code KF62 § 2255, Annotated KF65 U5 2255 Marteney 216 760; supra). reversed cause remanded proceedings inconsistent opinion. Reversed remanded. CLARK, whom FRANKFURTER, HARLAN STEWART join, dissenting. 11 characterizes used 34,1 significant phrase, 'whatever mean.' then finds determination. & N Dec. Immigration Nationality Decisions submit held today's decision contrary prior cases, out tune long-accepted practice both state courts. Believing will result confusion requirements our justice adversely affected, respectfully dissent. 12 Blocker Frazier offered (March 17), Government objected did when Lott 20). heard warned parties seriousness charge, i.e., charge willful tax avoidance, voluntarily without promises, might years' confinement addition large fine. After being assured each he wished enter plea, accepted them. Orders entered minutes defendant, accepting directing 'pre-sentence investigation' undertaken 'for entire case.' delay occasioned awaited additional defendants guilty. record shows (one acquitted hung jury), appeared 'on action docket *.' (Emphasis added.) addressing parties, said, '(a)ll you equivalent guilty.' Neither comment characterization pleas. Thereafter, statements mitigation, pronounced. permission withdraw judgments commitments petitioner day. March. however, crucial date sentence.2 Since came wih thereafter, followed, 37(a)(2).3 13 II(2) 292 662, 54 XXXVII, predecessor present stated 'motions shall (3) verdict Certainly 'verdict' referred guilt. A guilty always considered See 1930, 1076; Bradford, 194 197. same true contendere. Our cases long consistently 'like guilty, 1926, 347. As entry, 'the (of innocence) conclusive been. longer guilt, character extent punishment. remedy accused withdraw, 623 U.S., 425 14 successor II(2), likewise clear unambiguous—it sentence. today, rewrites holding controlling one. '(I)t guilt." 427, 1567. has, recognized disparate. supra; 32(b). If framers intended filing run so. Instead 'continues existing law except enlarges making days. 661.'4 'Existing law' allow unless 15 majority notes argument 1954, supports 'even silentio.' With due deference, say not. No jurisdiction raised either Court.5 dealt solely merits dismiss 32d ) 16 attempts bolster noting 'does conviction,' case' '(i)t thereon.' However, just returns certainly equally former II(2). committing instances entered. actual practice, nothing more done than necessary situations, determined respective jury. set aside made, granted, availability alter until appears unseemly me enlarge, through judicial decision, consequence, Only last Term, 1960, 229, 288, 259, effected 'through process pointed there, 45(b) specifically provides enlarge 33, 35, otherwise provided rules, appeal.' opinion, enlarged provision, long-established Bar. doing, places utter confusion, thereby surely drive Bar courts procedural distraction. affirm. 'Rule 37. Appeal; Petition Writ Certiorari. '(a) Appeal Appeals. '(2) Time Appeal. An new employer taxpayer Farnsworth Chambers Co., Incorporated Petitioners employee-officers corporation, collectively owned approximately percent issued outstanding capital stock. first four indictment charged attempt corporation's years 1951, 1952, 1953 respectively, fifth count conspiracy commit substantive offenses charged. codefendants stood Richard Farnsworth, Sr., son. major part Their began Apri 6, continued 9, resulted acquittal son all counts, failure agree father. sentenced imprisonment—Blocker years, count, concurrently, fined $20,000. Each prayed, inter alia, 'that arrested aside, dismissed, (there) relief demand.' Actually, 15. 17. Arrest Judgment. 'The information fix during 5-day period.' accord below Bertone, 249 156. see O'Neal 264 809; Drown 198 999; Godwin 185 411. To 171; 462; 212 125, affirmed 210. light arisen hoped advise respect exercise powers particularly course Judicial Conference (28 331, 331) Advisory Committee Procedure—will give problems early attention. states pertinent '(t)he Whether formally commitments, for, Court's rationale, While place note ten judgment.' If, 'in period,' tolled overruled. argue since '10-day subsequent overruled 13, (filed 17) assume considers contention—making surplusage—entirely untenable refuses pass it. Notes (1958 ed.), Page 3428. Petitioner's immediately His May 29 23. gave denial.

Classification Label: 0