Court Opinion

ID: 9429574
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-02 23:27:11.02766+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:23:20.453925
License: Public Domain

Justice Powell,
with whom The Chief Justice joins, concurring in part and concurring in the judgment.
I agree with Justice O’Connor that there is no federal habeas corpus jurisdiction. I continue to believe that Hensley v. Municipal Court, 411 U. S. 345 (1973), was wrongly decided for the reasons indicated by the dissent in that case.. But accepting Hensley as the law — as I do — there is no reason to extend it to find that Lydon was in “custody” when he is free on his own recognizance. As Justice O’Connor explains, Hensley is best understood as interpreting “custody” to include those cases where a criminal defendant, already convicted and sentenced, would be imprisoned without further state judicial action had not the prison sentence been stayed by the federal court on habeas. The State had “emphatically indicated its determination to put [Hensley] behind bars,” id., at 351-352, and would have done so but for a stay by the Federal District Court.
Lydon’s petition does not present such a case. Until Lydon is convicted, he is obligated only to appear at trial and to “keep the peace.” If the trial court finds that he has defaulted on his recognizance, the court may sentence him pursuant to his first conviction; but Lydon then may seek appellate review, see, e. g., Commonwealth v. Bartlett, 374 Mass. 744, 374 N. E. 2d 1203 (1978). It trivializes habeas *328corpus jurisdiction, historically a protection against governmental oppression, to use it as a remedy against restraints as petty as those to which Lydon is subject.
However, as the Court chooses a different tack, I address the merits as well and join Parts I, II-B, III, and IV of Justice White’s opinion.