Allen v. State of Georgia

Decision Date15 March 1897
Docket NumberNo. 641,641
Citation17 S.Ct. 525,166 U.S. 138,41 L.Ed. 949
PartiesALLEN v. STATE OF GEORGIA
CourtU.S. Supreme Court

This was a writ of error to review an order of the supreme court of the state of Georgia dismissing a writ of error from that court which had been sued out to reverse the conviction of the plaintiff in error for the murder of one Charles Carr.

After defendant had been convicted and sentenced to death by the superior court of Bibb county, he made a motion for a new trial, which was overruled, whereupon he sued out a writ of error from the supreme court of the state, which was assigned for hearing upon the 4th day of March, 1895. The case having been called upon that day, it was made to appear to the court by affidavits that Allen, after his conviction and sentence, had escaped from jail, and was at that time a fugitive from justice. Upon this showing, the court ordered that the writ of error be dismissed, unless he should within 60 days surrender himself to custody, or should be recaptured within that time, so as to be subject to the jurisdiction of the court, and should furnish evidence thereof by filing the same in the clerk's office.

On May 6th (which was more than 60 days thereafter) the court made a further order, in which, after stating that the plaintiff in error had not surrendered himself to custody, and furnished evidence thereof as required, and that he had not been rearrested since his escape from jail, it was ordered that the writ of error be finally dismissed.

This judgment was, on July 13, 1895, made the judgment of the superior court of Bibb county. Afterwards, Allen, having been recaptured, was, on the 25th of April, 1896, resentenced to death by the superior court, and thereupon made application to one of the justices of this court for a writ of error, which was duly granted; plaintiff assigning as error that the dismissing of his writ of error by the supreme court of the state of Georgia was a denial of due process of law.

W. C. Glenn, for plaintiff in error.

J. M. Terrell and John R. Cooper, for the State.

Mr. Justice BROWN, after stating the facts in the foregoing language, delivered the opinion of the court.

The plaintiff in error claims that the order of the supreme court of the state of Georgia dismissing his writ of error to the superior court of Bibb county, because he had escaped from jail, and was a fugitive from justice, was a denial of due process of law, within the meaning of the federal constitution.

It appeared from the record that after the writ of error had been finally dismissed, on May 6, 1895, Allen was subsequently recaptured, and upon April 25, 1896, was resentenced to death by the court in which he had been convicted. While the precise question here involved has never before been presented to this court, we have repeatedly held that we would not hear and determine moot cases, or cases in which there was not at the time a bona fide controversy pending. In a similar case from the supreme court of Nebraska (Bonahan v. Nebraska, 125 U. S. 692, 8 Sup. Ct. 1390), wherein it appeared that, pending the writ of error from this court, the plaintiff in error had escaped, and was no longer within the control of the court below, it was ordered that the submission of the cause be set aside, and, unless the plaintiff were brought within the jurisdiction of the court below on or before the last day of the term, the cause should be thereafter left off the docket, until directions to the contrary. A like order, under similar circumstances, was made in Smith v. U. S., 94 U. S. 97.

In civil cases it has been the universal practice to dismiss the case whenever it became apparent that there was no real dispute remaining between the plaintiff and the defendant, or that the case had been settled or otherwise disposed of by agreement of the parties, and there was no actual controversy pending. Lord v. Veazie, 8 How. 251; Gaines v. Hennen, 24 How. 553, 628; Cleveland v. Chamberlain, 1 Black, 419; Paper Co. v. Heft, 8 Wall. 333; Dakota Co. v. Glidden, 113 U. S. 222, 5 Sup. Ct. 428; Little v. Bowers, 134 U. S. 547, 10 Sup. Ct. 620; California v. San Pablo & T. R. Co., 149 U. S. 308, 13 Sup. Ct. 876.

We know at present of no reason why the same course may not be taken in criminal cases if the laws of the state or the practice of its courts authorize it. To justify any interference upon our part, it is necessary to show that the course pursued has deprived, or will deprive, the plaintiff in error of his life, liberty, or property without due process of law. Without attempting to define exactly in what due process of law consists, it is sufficient to say that, if the supreme court of a state has acted in consonance with the constitutional laws of a state and its own procedure, it could only be in very exceptional circumstances that this court would feel justified in saying that there had been a failure of due legal process. We might ourselves have pursued a different course in this case, but that is not the test. The plaintiff in error must have been deprived of one of those fundamental rights, the observance of which is indispensable to the liberty of the citizen, to justify our interference.

We cannot say that the dismissal of a writ of error is not justified by the abandonment of his case by the plaintiff in the writ. By escaping from legal custody, he has, by the laws of most, if not all, of the states, committed a distinct criminal offense; and it seems but a light punishment for such offense to hold that he has thereby abandoned his right to prosecute a...

To continue reading

Request your trial
137 cases
  • Peoples, In re
    • United States
    • North Carolina Supreme Court
    • December 29, 1978
    ...moot at any time during the course of the proceedings, the usual response should be to dismiss the action. Allen v. Georgia, 166 U.S. 138, 17 S.Ct. 525, 41 L.Ed. 949 (1897); People ex rel. Wallace v. Labrenz, 411 Ill. 618, 104 N.E.2d 769, Cert. denied 344 U.S. 824, 73 S.Ct. 24, 97 L.Ed. 642......
  • Nickey v. State ex rel. Attorney-General
    • United States
    • Mississippi Supreme Court
    • April 3, 1933
    ... ... Smith, 154 Miss. 787, 122 So ... 762; McDevitt v. Walls, 154 Miss. 671, 122 So. 766; ... Tatum v. Smith, 130 So. 683; Board v ... Allen, 60 Miss. 93; White v. Railroad, 64 Miss ... 366, 1 So. 730; Madden v. Railroad, 66 Miss. 258, 6 ... So. 181; Craft v. DeSoto County, 79 ... 68; Preston v. Sturgis ... Milling Co., 183 F. 1; 3. Cooley on Taxation (4 Ed.), ... sec. 1046; Cross v. Georgia Iron & Coal Company, 250 ... F. 438; Gray v. Stiles, 6 Okla. 455, 49 P. 1083 ... To ... permit the imposition of a personal judgment, ... ...
  • Nickey v. State
    • United States
    • Mississippi Supreme Court
    • January 30, 1933
    ... ... Smith, 154 ... Miss. 787, 122 So. 762; McDevitt v. Walls, 154 Miss. 671, 122 ... So. 766; Tatum v. Smith, 130 So. 683; Board v. Allen, 60 ... Miss. 93; White v. Railroad, 64 Miss. 366, 1 So. 730; Madden ... v. Railroad, 66 Miss. 258, 6 So. 181; Craft v. DeSoto County, ... 79 ... Cooley on Taxation (4 Ed.), sec. 68; Preston v. Sturgis ... Milling Co., 183 F. 1; 3 Cooley on Taxation (4 Ed.), sec ... 1046; Cross v. Georgia Iron & Coal Company, 250 F. 438; Gray ... v. Stiles, 6 Okla. 455, 49 P. 1083 ... To ... permit the imposition of a personal judgment, by ... ...
  • Albert Twining v. State of New Jersey
    • United States
    • U.S. Supreme Court
    • November 9, 1908
    ...389, 40 L. ed. 467, 16 Sup. Ct. Rep. 344; Lowe v. Kansas, 163 U. S. 81, 41 L. ed. 78, 16 Sup. Ct. Rep. 1031; Allen v. Georgia, 166 U. S. 138, 41 L. ed. 949, 17 Sup. Ct. Rep. 525; Hodgson v. Vermont, 168 U. S. 262, 42 L. ed. 461, 18 Sup. Ct. Rep. 80; Brown v. New Jersey, 175 U. S. 172, 44 L.......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
3 books & journal articles
  • ELIMINATING THE FUGITIVE DISENTITLEMENT DOCTRINE IN IMMIGRATION MATTERS.
    • United States
    • Notre Dame Law Review Vol. 97 No. 3, March 2022
    • March 1, 2022
    ...Christopher N. Lasch, mentor-lawyer-teacher-friend extraordinaire. (1) See Smith v. United States, 94 U.S. 97 (1876); Allen v. Georgia, 166 U.S. 138 (2) Degen v. United Suites, 517 U.S. 820, 824 (1996). (3) Technically, the process of raising a challenge of a BIA order to the circuit courts......
  • Sword or shield: due process and the fugitive disentitlement doctrine.
    • United States
    • Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology Vol. 87 No. 3, March 1997
    • March 22, 1997
    ...84 J. Crim. L. & Criminology 1086, 1087 (1994). (25) Smith, 94 U.S. at 97. (26) Id. (27) 125 U.S. 692 (1887). (28) Id. (29) Id. (30) 166 U.S. 138 (31) See id. at 140. (32) See id. at 141 (rejecting defendant's contention that dismissal constituted denial of due process: "We cannot say t......
  • Right To Appeal
    • United States
    • Maryland State Bar Association Warnken's Maryland Criminal Procedure (MSBA) Chapter 32 Appeals
    • Invalid date
    ...if he should voluntarily surrender within 10 days of his escape, does not violate the Equal Protection Clause); Allen v. Georgia, 166 U.S. 138, 141 (1897) (by escaping legal custody, the defendant abandoned the right to pursue his appeal). B. State's right to appeal 1. No common law right f......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT