Court Opinion

ID: 9447029
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-03 22:23:32.573503+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:30:52.393014
License: Public Domain

This is not a proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. It was initiated by Smith’s motion, filed February 25, 1958, for relief under 18 U.S.C. § 4245,1 in which he asked the court to determine, under the procedure prescribed by § 4244, his mental competency to stand trial. The motion here under consideration did not mention § 2255, with which Smith was thoroughly familiar, but was carefully and consciously based only on § 4245.2
*932The district judge did not “treat” the motion under § 4245 as though it had been made under § 2255; on the contrary, he mistakenly thought the motion was based on both statutory sections. That the judge had this erroneous conception of the present motion is clear from his opinion.3 Because of this error, he discussed the applicability of both statutes. There is no reason to suppose, however, that the trial judge would have “treated” the motion under § 4245 as having been made also under § 2255, had he not incorrectly thought that in it Smith had in fact relied on § 2255 as well as -on § 4245.
In spite of this history, some of my colleagues “treat” the motion under consideration as though it had been based on § 2255, and discuss at length the question whether it is a second motion for relief similar to that asked in Smith’s 1957 motion, which actually was based on § 2255. Thus they construe the present motion liberally in favor of the prisoner, and in so doing create and discuss a *933question concerning repetitive motions under § 2255 which as a matter of fact is not presented by the record.
I suppose they would give as the reason for such liberality of construction the fact that the present motion was not prepared by counsel but by Smith himself or another inmate of the Reformatory acting for him. Exactness in pleadings, my brothers probably would say, should not be required in such circumstances, and every indulgence should be granted to the unlettered applicant for relief. But the facts of this case do not justify this treatment.
There might be some reason to “treat” the § 4245 motion as having also been based on § 2255 had Smith been ignorant of the existence or nature of the latter section. The fact is that Smith was quite familiar with § 2255, and knew exactly what he was doing. He had had experience with § 2255, having expressly invoked that section in his 1957 motion, which was also prepared without the assistance of counsel.4 So it is clear that he knowingly and deliberately omitted any reliance upon or reference to § 2255 in the new motion, and based it solely on § 4245.
I think a prisoner who has been convicted of three different vicious robberies committed within a period of nine days should have a heavy burden when, long after his conviction, he attempts to escape the consequences of his actions. He should be required strictly to comply with the statute he invokes. In my view, Smith should be held to the remedy he deliberately chose. I think therefore the only proper subject for examination here is whether he is entitled to relief under § 4245.
Turning to that question, I believe it is clear that chapter 313 of Title 18 of the U.S.Code (§§ 4241 to 4248 inclusive) has to do only with inmates of Federal penal and correctional institutions. Smith is confined at the District of Columbia Reformatory at Lorton, Virginia, and is not under the jurisdiction of the Director of the Bureau of Prisons. Consequently he cannot invoke § 4245. Even if he were a Federal prisoner, Smith’s motion under § 4245 would avail him nothing because, as the district judge said, the provisions of that section can be set in motion only by a certificate of the Director of the Bureau of Prisons.5 There is not such a certificate in this case. Without one, a proceeding under § 4245 may not be instituted.
Even if the motion under § 4245 be “treated” as though it were made under § 2255, I think the sentencing court was correct in holding it was for relief similar to that Smith had asked in his 1957 motion under § 2255. That being so, the court’s refusal to entertain it cannot be reviewed because § 2255 provides “The sentencing court shall not be required to entertain a second or successive motion for similar relief on behalf of the same prisoner.”
The statute does not forbid the sentencing court to entertain a second or successive motion for similar relief. He may do so if he chooses, but he may not be required by us to do it. If an appellate court could review a sentencing court’s refusal to entertain a second or successive motion for similar relief on behalf of the same prisoner, it could remand and require the sentencing court to entertain it. This would be in the teeth of the statute.
The appellate court may, however, review the holding that the motion is a second or successive one for similar relief ; and if it reverses that holding, then it may require the sentencing court to entertain the motion. In other words, the only thing open to appellate review is whether the new motion is in law and fact a second or successive motion for similar relief. If it is not, the appellate *934court may order it to be entertained. But if it is for similar relief, the sentencing court cannot be required to entertain it.
Smith’s 1958 motion, which is now before us, if “treated” as under § 2255, is undoubtedly a second motion thereunder on behalf of the same prisoner. I suppose nobody will deny that. The only question then is whether it is “for similar relief.” I think unquestionably it is, for the reasons set forth in the opinions of Judges PRETTYMAN and BASTIAN. That being true, we may not require the trial judge to entertain the second motion.
Judge FAHY’S opinion, stripped to its essentials, says the congressional purpose in enacting § 2255 was to make habeas corpus available in the convicting court, instead of in a court in the place of confinement; and that, therefore, res judicata does not apply under § 2255, no matter what the statute says.6 In reaching this conclusion my brother virtually reads out of § 2255 the crucial sentence I have quoted and which is the keynote of this discussion. Its meaning is the goal we seek. I suggest the statute is clear and unambiguous.
Judge DANAHER also reads out of § 2255 the provision that “The sentencing court shall not be required to entertain a second * * * motion for similar relief * * He does so by relying on the succeeding sentence in the section, which is: “An appeal may be taken * * * from the order entered on the motion * * This language, he thinks, nullifies the immediately preceding provision that “The sentencing court shall not be required to entertain a second * * * motion for similar relief * * *»
My view is that when the sentencing court refuses to entertain a second or successive motion for similar relief, the order refusing to do so is not an “order entered on the motion” from which an appeal may be taken.7 It would be an idle thing for Congress to command that an appellate court shall not require the sentencing court to entertain a second or successive motion for similar relief, and then in the next sentence provide that an appeal may be taken from its refusal to entertain it, as a result of which the appellate court could require the sentencing court to do exactly the thing Congress had just said shall not be required.
For convenience in discussing Judge PRETTYMAN’S opinion, I reproduce its opening paragraph:
“I think Smith’s second motion was a ‘second or successive motion for similar relief’ within the meaning of Section 2255. But I join in remanding the case because, although the trial court was not required by the statute to entertain the motion, I think it abused its discretion, in the legal sense of that term, in not entertaining the motion.”
The conclusion as to a remand seems to me to be a non sequitur. He first stated, correctly I think, that “Smith’s second motion was a ‘second or- successive motion for similar relief’ within the meaning of Section 2255.” Thus, in my view, it is clearly a motion which the sentencing court “shall not be required to entertain.” One would suppose, then, that the characterization of the second *935motion as one which the sentencing court shall not be required to entertain would lead inevitably to an affirmance of the sentencing court’s action in refusing to entertain it.
But, not so; instead the non sequitur occurs. The opinion then says, “But I join in remanding the case because, although the trial court was not required by the statute to entertain the motion, I think it abused its discretion * * * ” in not doing so. The non sequitur becomes even more apparent when we note that the words “although the trial court was not required by the statute to entertain the motion,” do not tell the whole story: the statute not only does not require the sentencing court to entertain the motion but also contains the affirmative mandate that the sentencing court “shall not be required” to entertain it.
For this reason I say that in the opening paragraph of his opinion my colleague completely ignores the crucial statutory sentence I have quoted. For, although the sentencing court cannot be required to entertain a second motion for similar relief, which Judge Prettyman finds this motion to be, he nevertheless thinks the sentencing court should have entertained it and therefore would require him to do it, against the mandate of the statute.
I suggest again that the only reviewable thing about the sentencing court’s action is his determination that the motion was a second one for similar relief. If that determination was correct, — and Judge PRETTYMAN says it was — then the statute which provides in unmistakable terms that he shall not be required to entertain it indisputably applies. No amount of language can remove the clear provision from the statute, nor justify ignoring it. It was deliberately written by Congress and simply and unequivocally forbids an appellate court to require a sentencing court to entertain a second or successive motion for similar relief.
I agree with my brothers PRETTY-MAN and BASTIAN that a movant under § 2255 must set forth in his first motion all the reasons for relief which are known to him; that, having failed to do so, if he then files a second motion setting out a reason for relief which he knew or should have known when the first motion was prepared, such second motion should be held to be a “second motion * * * for similar relief * * Otherwise he could present in each of several successive motions a single reason for relief when all had been known to him in the first instance; such a procedure would amount to disregarding the statute and trifling with the court.
Consequently, Smith should have alleged in his 1957 motion under § 2255 that he was mentally defective because, if he is defective now, he was defective then; or he must satisfactorily explain why he asserted for the first time in the 1958 motion that he is mentally defective. The penalty for postponing the allegation without adequate explanation of delay is that the subsequent motion will be held to be “a second or successive motion for similar relief” which the sentencing judge may, but cannot be required to, entertain. Whether to entertain it is entirely within the discretion of the sentencing judge, a discretion which cannot be controlled by an appellate court, because Congress has said the District Court cannot be required to entertain a second or successive motion for similar relief.
Assuming for discussion, without conceding, that Smith’s 1958 motion was not for relief similar to that requested in his 1957 motion, there still remains the question whether the new motion sufficiently suggested mental incompetency to stand trial so as to require a hearing under § 2255. For the reasons given by Judge BASTIAN, I think the allegation would not have been sufficient to raise an issue as to whether Smith was too mentally defective to stand trial, had it been offered in the first instance. For the motion does not allege he was so mentally defective that he could not understand the nature of the charges against him or assist in his own defense. The files and records show the contrary. *936He does not even affirmatively allege he has the low I.Q. he says a doctor once attributed to him.
Not only do I dissent from the majority's order remanding the case for a hearing as to Smith’s mental competency at the time of trial. I question its sufficiency as well. If his present motion is to be “treated” as a motion under § 2255 alleging mental incompetency at the time of trial, it must also be “treated” as a motion under § 24-301 (a) of the D.C. Code (1951) for a determination of mental competency to stand a new trial, should one be ordered. This is so because Smith’s claim of mental incompetency at the time of trial rests solely upon his allegation that a prison test showed him to be mentally defective; as a mental defect does not improve, the allegation of its existence puts in issue not only his mental competency at the trial but also his present and future mental competency to stand a new trial, if his sentences should be vacated.
As the case -is being remanded, the District Court should be directed to grant a hearing on both issues and to make findings both as to Smith’s competency at the time of trial and his present competency. If that court finds Smith was incompetent at the time of his trial, it should vacate the sentence and order a new trial. If the court should also find — which it must in that event — that he is presently incompetent to stand trial, it should order the prisoner confined in a hospital for the mentally ill until such time, if ever, as he is restored to mental competency, — as provided in § 24-301 (a) and (b), D.C.Code (1951), Supp. VI (1958).
This procedure would not produce the desired result of freeing the prisoner, as it would insure that he either serves his present sentences or spends the rest of his life in a mental institution. Faced with that alternative, Smith would probably prefer tq dismiss this appeal and serve the sentences.
I would affirm the judgment of the District Court.

. The Code provisions involved here, viz. 28 U.S.O. § 2255 and 18 U.S.C. § 4245, will be referred to hereinafter by the section numbers alone.

. This will be seen from an examination of the text of the motion, which is as follows:
“Now comes Norman Smith, petitioner in the above entitled canse in his proper person and moves the court to grant him a hearing to determine his mental competency to stand trial, in accordance with the provisions of sec. 4244 Title 18 U.S.Code, and order the Director of the Bureau of Prisons or such authorized person to make available for the hearing a complete report on the prison psychiatrist’s findings in the examina*932tion of yonr petitioner at D. C. Reformatory, Lorton, Virginia. The jurisdiction of this court to order such hearing on mental incompetency undisclosed at trial —sec. 4245, U.S.Code—
“ ‘Whenever the [Djirector of the Bureau of Prisons shall certify that a person convicted of an offence [sic] against the United States has been examined by the board of examiners referred to in Title 18, United States Code, Sec. 4241, and that there is probable cause to believe that such person was mentally incompetant [sic] at the time of his trial, provided the issue of mental competency was not raised and determined before or during said trial, the Attorney General shall transmit the report of the board of examiners and the certificate of the Direction [sic] of the Bureau of Prisons to the clerk of the [district] court wherein the conviction was had. Whereupon the court shall hold a hearing to determine the mental competency of the accused in accordance with the provisions of sec. 4244 above and with all the powers therein granted. In such hearing the certificate of the Director of the Bureau of Prisons shall be prima facia [sic] evidence of the facts and conclusions certified therein. If the court shall find that the accused was mentally incompetant [sic] at the time of [his] trial, the court shall vacate the judgment of conviction and grant a new trial. (Added Sept. 7, 1949, ch. 535, S 1, 63 [Stat.] 686.’
“Upon examination by psychiatrist at D. 0. Reformatory, petitioners I. Q. was found to be 53-Defective, and it is petitioners contention that such steps should have been taken by the Director of the Bureau of Prisons and/or the Director of the District of Columbia Department of Corrections as provided under this section, and that the court has a duty to act, under its equity powers, where said Director has failed to do so.
“Petitioner believes that if the question of mental competency to stand trial had been raised during or before trial, the results would have been similar to thoese [sic] in United States v. Louise Heinzel, D.C. (1958), where the Judge’s instructions to the jury restricted them to considering a verdict of either not guilty, or not guilty because of insanity. The accused there had been found to have an I. Q. of 75, which which [sic] was termed a ‘Borderline mental defective.’ Surely, as much consideration, if not greater, should be given in determing [sic] the competency of petitioner to stand trial with the I. Q. of 53-Defec-tive.
“Prayer
“Wherefore petitioner prays this court will vacate judgment and order a new trial via a hearing pursuent [sic] to sec. 4245 Title 18 U.S.Code. Appoint competent [sic] counsel to assist petitioner, so that the posture of petitioner’s motion may be properly laid before the court in it’s [sic] most favorable light, and in order that petitioner may have the effective assistance of counsel and due process of law which the sixth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States secures to petitioner. Tour petitioner forever prays.”

. In the first paragraph of the opinion the judge said, “The motion is based on 28 U.S.C. § 2255, and on 18 U.S.C. § 4245.” Later in the opinion, after referring to Smith’s motion of April 6, 1957, which expressly invoked § 2255, he said, “On February 25, 1958, the defendant submitted by mail from the Reformatory, another handwritten motion in propria persona to vacate the judgment, this time invoking 18 U.S.C. § 4245, as well as 28 U.S.C. § 2255.” The text of the later motion, reproduced in footnote 2, shows the District Court was in error in saying the movant invoked § 2255.

. Smith thus labeled the motion of April 6, .1957: “Petition For Leave To File Motion and To Proceed In Forma Pau-peris And A [sic] Affidavit In Support Thereof Under Authority Title 28 U.S. Code Section 2255.”

. See also Hoskins v. United States, 6 Cir., 1957, 251 F.2d 51.

. In thus equating the civil remedy of habeas corpus with a motion under § 2255, which is a step in the original criminal proceeding, he relies largely on United States v. Hayman, 1952, 342 U.S. 205, 72 S.Ct. 263, 96 L.Ed. 232. That case mentions but does not give the substance of the Report of the Committee on Habeas Corpus to the Judicial Conference, Sept. 1943; and does not mention S.Rep. Nos. 1526 and 1527 (80th Cong., 2d Sess. 1948) concerning the bills approved by the Judicial Conference.

. It is not an order denying the motion, which United States v. Hayman, 1952, 342 U.S. 205, 209 note 4, 72 S.Ct. 263, 96 L.Ed. 232, says is appealable. It is, rather, a threshold refusal even to entertain the motion.