Berman v. United States, No. 26
| Court | United States Supreme Court |
| Writing for the Court | HUGHES |
| Citation | 82 L.Ed. 204,302 U.S. 211,58 S.Ct. 164 |
| Parties | BERMAN v. UNITED STATES |
| Docket Number | No. 26 |
| Decision Date | 06 December 1937 |
v.
UNITED STATES.
Mr. Samuel H. Kaufman, of New York City, for petitioner.
Messrs. Homer S. Cummings, Atty. Gen., and Mr. Wm. W. Barron, of Washington, D.C., for the United States.
Mr. Chief Justice HUGHES delivered the opinion of the Court.
On conviction upon an indictment containing several counts for using the mails to defraud (18 U.S.C. § 338 (18 U.S.C.A. § 338)) and for conspiracy to that end (18 U.S.C. § 88 (18 U.S.C.A. § 88)), petitioner was sentenced on each count to serve a year and a day,
Page 212
the terms of imprisonment to run concurrently. Execution of the sentence was suspended and petitioner was placed on probation for two years. Petitioner appealed from the sentence.
While the appeal was pending and without its withdrawal, petitioner, fearing its dismissal, applied to the District Court for resentence. That court reimposed the prior sentence of imprisonment, again supending its execution, and added a fine of $1 upon each count. The court did not vacate the prior sentence. Petitioner then appealed from the second sentence.
The Circuit Court of Appeals held that, by reason of suspension of its execution, the first sentence was interlocutory and dismissed the first appeal. Assuming that appeal to be a nullity, the Court of Appeals thought that the District Court had power to resentence; that petitioner could not complain of the fine as it was imposed at his request; and that the second sentence of imprisonment, if taken alone, was interlocutory. The judgment imposing the fine was affirmed and the appeal from the second sentence of imprisonment was dismissed. 88 F.2d 645.
We are of the opinion that the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the first appeal as interlocutory. Petitioner was convicted and sentenced. Final judgment in a criminal case means sentence. The sentence is the judgment. Miller v. Aderhold, 288 U.S. 206, 210, 53 S.Ct. 325, 77 L.Ed. 702; Hill v. United States ex rel. Wampler, 298 U.S. 460, 464, 56 S.Ct. 760, 762, 80 L.Ed. 1283. Here, the imposition of the sentence was not suspended, but only its execution. The sentence was not vacated. It stood as a final determination of the merits of the criminal charge. To create finality it was necessary that petitioner's conviction should be followed by sentence (Hill v. Wampler, supra) but when so followed the finality of the judgment was not lost because execution was suspended. In criminal cases, as well as civil, the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
U.S. v. Busic, Nos. 383
...S.Ct. 1221, 93 L.Ed. 1528 (1949), and within the meaning generally given in the context of criminal proceedings, Berman v. United States, 302 U.S. 211, 212-13, 58 S.Ct. 164, 82 L.Ed. 204 (1937). Just as surely, it is "truly collateral to the criminal prosecution itself in the sense that (it......
-
Government of Virgin Islands v. Rivera, No. 02-1457.
...89 L.Ed. 911 (1945). In a criminal case, the sentence is the final judgment. Douglas, 812 F.2d at 831; see also Berman v. United States, 302 U.S. 211, 212, 58 S.Ct. 164, 82 L.Ed. 204 (1937) ("Final judgment in a criminal case means sentence. The sentence is the judgment."). Thus, generally,......
-
State v. Craig, No. 2018-0146
...upon a finding of guilt. See State v. Chamberlain , 177 Ohio St. 104, 106, 202 N.E.2d 695 (1964), quoting Berman v. United States , 302 U.S. 211, 212, 58 S.Ct. 164, 82 L.Ed. 204 (1937) (" ‘Final judgment in a criminal case means sentence. The sentence is the judgment’ "); State v. Hunt , 47......
-
Miller v. Bell, No. 3:01-CV-487.
...166 L.Ed.2d 628 (2007) ("Final judgment in a criminal case means sentence. The sentence is the judgment") (citing Berman v. United States, 302 U.S. 211, 212, 58 S.Ct. 164, 82 L.Ed. 204 (1937)); Griffith, 479 U.S. at 321 n. 6, 107 S.Ct. 708 ("By `final,' we mean a case in which a judgment of......
-
Dolan v. US, No. 09-367.
...the Government seek timely relief, whether under Rule 35 or by appeal. Cf. Corey, supra, at 174, 84 S.Ct. 298; Berman v. United States, 302 U.S. 211, 212, 58 S.Ct. 164, 82 L.Ed. 204 (1937). Nor did it assert any claim that the deadline had been lawfully extended or equitably tolled, an issu......
-
U.S. v. Busic, Nos. 383
...S.Ct. 1221, 93 L.Ed. 1528 (1949), and within the meaning generally given in the context of criminal proceedings, Berman v. United States, 302 U.S. 211, 212-13, 58 S.Ct. 164, 82 L.Ed. 204 (1937). Just as surely, it is "truly collateral to the criminal prosecution itself in the sense that (it......
-
U.S. v. Jefferson, No. 08-4215.
...review of a non-final decision of a district court is highly disfavored, particularly in a criminal case. See Berman v. United States, 302 U.S. 211, 212, 58 S.Ct. 164, 82 L.Ed. 204 (1937) ("Final judgment in a criminal case means sentence. The sentence is the judgment."); see also Midland A......
-
United States v. Cooper, No. 05-1447 (Fed. 3rd Cir. 4/4/2006), No. 05-1447.
...all final decisions of the district courts . . . ." Sentences imposed in a criminal case are "final decisions." Berman v. United States, 302 U.S. 211, 212-13 (1937); United States v. Moskow, 588 F.2d 882, 889 (3d Cir. 1978). Prior to the implementation of the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984 (......
-
The Final Countdown: Using Resentencing as Final Judgment in the Post-AEDPA Era.
...(10th Cir. 2017) (disagreeing with Fourth Circuit's rationale and arguing for claim-by-claim analysis). (11.) See Berman v. United States, 302 U.S. 211, 212 (1937) (maintaining criminal cases finalized by sentence rather than judgment); see also Burton v. Stewart, 549 U.S. 147, 156-57 (2007......