Court Opinion

ID: 9448950
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-03 23:50:43.083869+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:31:37.448451
License: Public Domain

JOHNSON, District Judge
(dissenting).
In this case, the majority has held that the ten-day period for appeal after conviction in a criminal case, as provided by Rule 37(a) (2) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, does not commence to run in those instances where the defendant being sentenced is not represented by' counsel until the sentencing judge advises that defendant of his right to appeal and if he so requests, the preparation and filing in his behalf of a notice of appeal. I believe the law is settled to the contrary. The Supreme Court of the United States recently had occasion to consider whether the time limit prescribed for taking an appeal [as provided by Rule 37(a) (2)] could be enlarged by either the District Court or the Court of Appeals. In United States v. Robinson, 361 U.S. 220, 80 S.Ct. 282, 4 L.Ed.2d 259 (1960), Mr. Justice Whittaker, delivering the opinion of the Court, stated:
“On its face, Rule 45(b) appears to be quite plain and clear. It specifically says that ‘the court may not enlarge * * * the period for taking an appeal.’ We think that to recognize a late notice of appeal is actually to ‘enlarge’ the period for taking an appeal. Giving the words of 45(b) their plain meaning, it would seem that the conclusion of the Court of Appeals is in direct conflict with that Rule. No authority was cited by the Court of Appeals in support of its conclusion, nor is any supporting authority cited by respondents here. The Government insists, it appears correctly, that there is no case that supports the Court of Appeals’ conclusion. Every other decision to which we have been cited, and that we have found, holds that the filing of a notice of appeal within the 10-day period prescribed by Rule 37(a) (2) is mandatory and jurisdictional.
“It is quite significant that Rule 45(b) not only prohibits the court from enlarging the period for taking an appeal, but, by the same language in the same sentence, also prohibits enlargement of the period for taking any action under Rules 33, 34 and 35, except as provided in those Rules. That language is: ‘ * * * but the court may not enlarge the period for taking any action under Rules 33, 34 and 35, except as otherwise provided in those Rules, or the
*924period for taking an appeal.’ If, as the Court of Appeals has held, the delayed filing of a notice of appeal— found to have resulted from ‘excusable neglect’ — is sufficient to confer jurisdiction of the appeal, it would consistently follow that a District Court may, upon a like finding, permit delayed filing of a motion for new trial under Rule 33, of a motion in arrest of judgment under Rule 34, and the reduction of sentence under Rule 35, at any time — months or even years — after expiration of the periods specifically prescribed in those Rules.”
* * * * * # “Rule 45(b) says in plain words that ‘ * * * the court may not enlarge * * * the period for taking an appeal.’ The courts have uniformly held that the taking of an appeal within the prescribed time is mandatory and jurisdictional. The history of Rule 45(b) shows that consideration was given to the matter of vesting a limited discretion in the courts to grant an extension of time for the taking of an appeal, but, upon further consideration, the idea was deliberately abandoned. It follows that the plain words, the judicial interpretations, and the history, of Rule 45(b) not only fail to support, but actually oppose, the conclusion of the Court of Appeals, and therefore its judgment cannot stand.”
See also United States v. Smith, 331 U.S. 469, 67 S.Ct. 1330, 91 L.Ed. 1610; Hodges v. United States, 108 U.S.App.D.C. 375, 282 F.2d 858 (1960); and Marion v. United States (CCA 9, 1948), 171 F.2d 185.
The appellant in this case, without any question, was sentenced by the district judge on November 22, 1961, at a time when he was represented by counsel. However, the record clearly reflects that Boruff did not at any time have the benefit of advice from either the Court or counsel concerning his rights under Rule 37(a) (2). The appeal in this case was not filed until March 20, 1962. The appeal, therefore, was not timely and this Court has no jurisdiction. The appellant is not without his remedy of habeas corpus. I therefore respectfully dissent.