404 U.S. 244 (1971), 70-77, North Carolina v. Rice
| Docket Nº: | No. 70-77 |
| Citation: | 404 U.S. 244, 92 S.Ct. 402, 30 L.Ed.2d 413 |
| Party Name: | North Carolina v. Rice |
| Case Date: | December 14, 1971 |
| Court: | United States Supreme Court |
Page 244
Argued October 12, 1971
CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
Syllabus
Respondent was convicted in a General County Court in North Carolina of driving while intoxicated and was sentenced to nine months' imprisonment and payment of a fine. On appeal, he was tried de novo in the Superior Court, found guilty, and given a two-year sentence. The District Court denied habeas corpus, and respondent, who by then had been completely discharged from prison, appealed to the Court of Appeals. That court, relying on North Carolina v. Pearce, 395 U.S. 711, held that the case was not mooted by respondent's discharge, and that respondent was entitled to have the record of his conviction expunged.
Held: North Carolina v. Pearce, supra, does not require that respondent's conviction be invalidated, but only that he be resentenced if the higher sentence imposed after the de novo trial was vulnerable under Pearce. Since the present record deals with the mootness issue only from the standpoint of conviction vel non, and does not reveal whether, under state law, benefits accrue to respondent in having his sentence reduced after he has served it, the case is remanded for reconsideration of the mootness question.
434 F.2d 297, vacated and remanded.
Page 245
Per curiam opinion.
PER CURIAM.
On July 2, 1968, respondent Rice was arrested for driving while intoxicated on a North Carolina state highway. He was tried in the General County Court of Buncombe County, convicted, and sentenced to imprisonment for nine months with sentence suspended upon payment of $100 fine and costs. On appeal, he was tried de novo in the Superior Court, found guilty, and sentenced to two years' imprisonment. State post-conviction procedures were unavailing. On appeal from denial of federal habeas corpus, the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit held that, under North Carolina v. Pearce, 395 U.S. 711 (1969),
the more drastic sentence on the second trial [was] a denial of Federal due process, in that, [92 S.Ct. 404] by discouragement, it impinges upon the State-given appeal.
434 F.2d 297, 300 (1970). Although "[h]e was completely discharged by North Carolina on January 24, 1970 . . . , this did not moot the case on habeas corpus," because injurious consequences from the conviction might still obtain. Ibid. The judgment was that Rice was entitled to have the record of his conviction expunged. The State's petition for writ of certiorari was granted. 401 U.S. 1008 (1971).
The State claims that Pearce does not apply to a situation where the more severe sentence is imposed after a trial de novo in its Superior Court. We do not reach that question, however, since the threshold issue of mootness
Page 246
was improperly disposed of by the Court of Appeals. Although neither party has urged that this case is moot, resolution of the question is essential if federal courts are to function within their constitutional sphere of authority. Early in its history, this Court held that it had no power to issue advisory opinions, Hayburn's Case, 2 Dall. 409 (1792), as interpreted in Muskrat v. United States, 219 U.S. 346, 351-353 (1911), and it has frequently repeated that federal courts are without power to decide questions that cannot affect the rights of litigants in the case before them. Oil Workers Unions v. Missouri, 361 U.S. 363, 367 (1960). To be cognizable in a federal court, a suit
must be definite and concrete, touching the legal relations of parties having adverse legal interests. . . . It must be a real and substantial controversy admitting of specific relief through a decree of a conclusive character, as distinguished from an opinion advising what the law would be upon a hypothetical state of facts.
Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Haworth, 300 U.S. 227, 240-241 (1937). However, "[m]oot questions require no answer." Missouri, Kansas & Texas R. Co. v. Ferris, 179 U.S. 602, 606 (1900). Mootness is a jurisdictional question, because the Court "is not empowered to decide moot questions or abstract...
To continue reading
FREE SIGN UP
-
139 B.R. 290 (D.N.J. 1992), 91-5701, In re Heldor Industries, Inc.
...60 L.Ed.2d 735 (1979); County of Los Angeles v. Davis, 440 U.S. 625, 634, 99 S.Ct. 1379, 59 L.Ed.2d 642 (1979); North Carolina v. Rice, 404 U.S. 244, 245, 92 S.Ct. 402, 30 L.Ed.2d 413 (1971); United States v. Munsingwear, Inc., 340 U.S. 36, 37, 71 S.Ct. 104, 95 L.Ed. 36 (1950); United State......
-
235 B.R. 173 (Bkrtcy.D.Mass. 1999), 97-45577, In re Melendez
...about particular actions, when no party is before the court who has suffered or imminently faces specific injury. North Carolina v. Rice, 404 U.S. 244, 246, 92 S.Ct. 402, 30 L.Ed.2d 413 It is also undisputed that Bankruptcy Courts have jurisdiction to ensure compliance with the Bankruptcy C......
-
316 F.Supp.2d 568 (N.D.Ohio 2004), 102 CV 2037, Village of Grafton v. Rural Lorain County Water Authority
...(6th Cir. 2002) (case or controversy requirement prevented federal court from issuing advisory opinions) (quoting North Carolina v. Rice, 404 U.S. 244, 246, 92 S.Ct. 402, 30 L.Ed.2d 413 (1971) ("[F]ederal courts are without power to decide questions that cannot affect the rights of lit......
-
417 F.Supp. 426 (E.D.Pa. 1976), Civ. A. 74-100, Danzy v. Johnson
...courts are without power to decide questions that cannot affect the rights of litigants in the case before them. North Carolina v. Rice, 404 U.S. 244, 246, 92 S.Ct. 402, 404, 30 L.Ed.2d 413 (1971). The action will accordingly be dismissed for failure to present a live justiciable case or co......
-
139 B.R. 290 (D.N.J. 1992), 91-5701, In re Heldor Industries, Inc.
...60 L.Ed.2d 735 (1979); County of Los Angeles v. Davis, 440 U.S. 625, 634, 99 S.Ct. 1379, 59 L.Ed.2d 642 (1979); North Carolina v. Rice, 404 U.S. 244, 245, 92 S.Ct. 402, 30 L.Ed.2d 413 (1971); United States v. Munsingwear, Inc., 340 U.S. 36, 37, 71 S.Ct. 104, 95 L.Ed. 36 (1950); United State......
-
235 B.R. 173 (Bkrtcy.D.Mass. 1999), 97-45577, In re Melendez
...about particular actions, when no party is before the court who has suffered or imminently faces specific injury. North Carolina v. Rice, 404 U.S. 244, 246, 92 S.Ct. 402, 30 L.Ed.2d 413 It is also undisputed that Bankruptcy Courts have jurisdiction to ensure compliance with the Bankruptcy C......
-
316 F.Supp.2d 568 (N.D.Ohio 2004), 102 CV 2037, Village of Grafton v. Rural Lorain County Water Authority
...(6th Cir. 2002) (case or controversy requirement prevented federal court from issuing advisory opinions) (quoting North Carolina v. Rice, 404 U.S. 244, 246, 92 S.Ct. 402, 30 L.Ed.2d 413 (1971) ("[F]ederal courts are without power to decide questions that cannot affect the rights of lit......
-
417 F.Supp. 426 (E.D.Pa. 1976), Civ. A. 74-100, Danzy v. Johnson
...courts are without power to decide questions that cannot affect the rights of litigants in the case before them. North Carolina v. Rice, 404 U.S. 244, 246, 92 S.Ct. 402, 404, 30 L.Ed.2d 413 (1971). The action will accordingly be dismissed for failure to present a live justiciable case or co......
-
ARE COLLATERAL CONSEQUENCES DESERVED?
...uniformly argued that CCs are punishment, and that the courts have erred in finding otherwise"). (62) See North Carolina v. Rice, 404 U.S. 244, 247 n. 1 (1971) (per curiam) ("A convicted criminal may be disenfranchised, lose the right to hold federal or state office, be barred fro......
-
Lawrence v. Texas
...and it will not "decide questions that cannot affect the rights of litigants in the case before [it]." North Carolina v. Rice, 404 U.S. 244, 246 (1971) (citations omitted). For example, in cases not involving expressive activity protected by the First Amendment, litigants have no ......
-
The new civil death: rethinking punishment in the era of mass conviction.
...State has presumably deemed such ex-felons worthy of participating in civic life." (citation omitted)). (52) North Carolina v. Rice, 404 U.S. 244, 247 n.1 (1971) (citations omitted). (53) See District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 626 (2008) (recognizing a fundamental Second Ame......
-
Jurisdictional procedure.
...(14.) McCulloch v. Sociedad Nacional de Marineros de Honduras, 372 U.S. 10, 16 (1963) (emphasis added); see also North Carolina v. Rice, 404 U.S. 244,246 (15.) Plains Commerce Bank v. Long Family Land & Cattle Co., 554 U.S. 316, 324 (2008). (16.) For a discussion of the reasons that jur......