Fallen v. United States
| Decision Date | 22 June 1964 |
| Docket Number | No. 210,210 |
| Citation | 12 L.Ed.2d 760,378 U.S. 139,84 S.Ct. 1689 |
| Parties | Floyd Charles FALLEN, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Isaac N. Groner, Washington, D.C., for petitioner.
Philip B. Heymann, Washington, D.C., for respondent.
At issue in this case is whether petitioner's notice of appeal was filed within the time specified by Rule 37(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure.
Petitioner was convicted on January 11, 1962, of violations of the postal laws.1 Four days later—on January 15—he appeared for sent ncing with the attorney who had been appointed to represent him at trial. Consecutive sentences aggregating 20 years were imposed, after which the defendant asked if he could appeal the case 'as an insolvent.' The sentencing judge replied:
'Oh, yes, you always have a right to appeal; the Government provides for that.
'Mr. Marshal, you may take charge of the defendant.'
Before he was taken out of the building, petitioner was given an opportunity to consult with his court-appointed attorney. According to the attorney's later recollection, petitioner asked him at that time if he would be interested in representing him on an appeal. The attorney responded that his firm did not want him to undertake any further criminal matters, and that it would thus be best for petitioner to secure another attorney promptly so as not to forfeit his right to appeal. The attorney recalled that this conference lasted for about an hour and a half—petitioner, that it lasted for only a few minutes. In any event, petitioner was then taken back to the medical center at which he had been quartered during the trial.2 Early the next morning, he was transferred to hospital facilities at Atlanta to commence his sentence. At neither place was he permitted to have visitors.
On January 29, 14 days after sentencing, the clerk of the court in which petitioner had been convicted received letters from petitioner asking for a new trial and for an appeal. The letters were dated January 23 by petitioner, and were mailed in a single envelope which bore a government frank but no postmark. No communications had been received in the interim from either petitioner or his court-appointed counsel.
The chief judge of the district then reappointed the same attorney for the purpose of presenting the motion for a new trial to the trial judge at a hearing which was set for that purpose. In due course the motion was denied on the merits, the time question having been argued but not decided. On the same day, petitioner's reappointed attorney filed a notice of appeal and petitioner was granted leave to appeal in forma pauperis. Thereafter a new attorney was appointed to represent petitioner before the Court of Appeals and the case was set for hearing on the Government's motion to dismiss the appeal because the notice was not timely filed.
A divided Court of Appeals held, first, that petitioner's motion for a new trial was not timely filed, and that the consideration of the motion on the merits by the trial judge was in error and thus could not serve to extend the time for filing a notice of appeal.3 It then held that the time for filing the notice began on January 15 when petitioner was sentenced, and expired when on January 25 the clerk had not received the notice. 306 F.2d 697. We granted certiorari, 374 U.S. 826, 83 S.Ct. 1882, 10 L.Ed.2d 1050, to consider whether the restrictive reading of the Rules by the court below was justified under the circumstances of this case. We have concluded that it was not, and accordingly remand the case for a disposition of petitioner's appeal on the merits.
Rule 37(a) provides that '(a)n appeal by a defendant may be taken within 10 days after entry of the judgment or order appealed from * * *' and that an appeal is taken 'by filing with the clerk of the district court a no ice of appeal * * *.' The Court of Appeals has read this to mean that, irrespective of the reason for the delay, the notice of appeal must actually be in the hands of the clerk on or before the 10th day. Since the timely filing of a notice of appeal is a jurisdictional prerequisite to the hearing of the appeal, the court thus felt powerless to do anything but to dismiss.
Overlooked, in our view, was the fact that the Rules are not, and were not intended to be, a rigid code to have an inflexible meaning irrespective of the circumstances. Rule 2 begins with the admonition that That the Rules were not approached with sympathy for their purpose is apparent when the circumstances of this case are examined.
In the first place, in spite of the promise of the Rule,4 petitioner was forced to take his appeal without the assistance of counsel. He was whisked away from the place of trial (Jacksonville, Florida) on the day after he was sentenced, and, as he tells it without contradiction in the record, not permitted to have visitors, nor afforded the opportunity to secure another attorney. In addition to his normal physical problems, he was ill,5 and was thus confined in a hospital both in Jacksonville and in Atlanta.
It was not until January 23, as he tells it, again without contradiction in the record, that he felt well enough to write. Acting without advice as to the requirements of time, except that which he could acquire from other inmates, he then wrote two letters asking for a new trial and for the appeal which the trial judge promised that 'the Government provides.' These letters were promptly mailed on January 23, for all the record shows, and by coincidence, no doubt, would...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Browder v. Director, Department of Corrections of Illinois
...United States v. Robinson, 361 U.S. 220, 229, 80 S.Ct. 282, 288, 4 L.Ed.2d 259 (1960). See also Fallen v. United States, 378 U.S. 139, 84 S.Ct. 1689, 12 L.Ed.2d 760 (1964); Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 442, 82 S.Ct. 917, 919, 8 L.Ed.2d 21 (1962); United States v. Schaefer Brewin......
-
Pitch v. United States, No. 17-15016
...by the courts in conformance with the rule's general rule of secrecy." Id. at 1269 (citing Fallen v. United States , 378 U.S. 139, 142, 84 S. Ct. 1689, 1691, 12 L.Ed.2d 760 (1964) ). District courts therefore retained "inherent power beyond the literal wording of Rule 6(e)" to authorize dis......
-
Houston v. Lack
..."filed" at the moment of delivery to prison authorities for forwarding to the district court. Cf. Fallen v. United States, 378 U.S. 139, 84 S.Ct. 1689, 12 L.Ed.2d 760 (Stewart, J., concurring). Unskilled in law, unaided by counsel, and unable to leave the prison, a pro se prisoner's control......
-
Burkett v. Cunningham
...physically restrained by respondents from checking in person on the status of his case. Cf. Fallen v. United States, 378 U.S. 139, 142-143, 84 S.Ct. 1689, 1691-1692, 12 L.Ed.2d 760 (1964) (court must accept notice of appeal filed late by prisoner because prison prevented its timely filing).......
-
Review Proceedings
...2010) (defendant’s motion to reconsider denial of motion for new trial extended deadline for filing appeal). 2672. See Fallen v. U.S., 378 U.S. 139, 144 (1964) (appeal not dismissed as untimely when defendant was in prison and did all that could reasonably be expected to timely appeal) sup......
-
Fairness in Habeas Petition Filings for Pro Se Prisoners: the Propriety of the Eighth Circuit's Holding in Nichols v. Bowersox
...75. Id. 76. Id. at 270. 77. Id. at 270-71. 78. Id. 79. Id. 80. Id. 81. Id. at 271-72. 82. Id. at 272-73 (citing Fallen v. United States, 378 U.S. 139, 144 (1964)). 83. Id. at 275. 84. Id. 85. Id. at 272-73, 275-76. 86. Id. at 280-81 (Scalia, J., dissenting). 87. Id. (Scalia, J., dissenting)......
-
Fairness in Habeas Petition Filings for Pro Se Prisoners: the Propriety of the Eighth Circuit's Holding in Nichols v. Bowersox
...75. Id. 76. Id. at 270. 77. Id. at 270-71. 78. Id. 79. Id. 80. Id. 81. Id. at 271-72. 82. Id. at 272-73 (citing Fallen v. United States, 378 U.S. 139, 144 (1964)). 83. Id. at 275. 84. Id. 85. Id. at 272-73, 275-76. 86. Id. at 280-81 (Scalia, J., dissenting). 87. Id. (Scalia, J., dissenting)......
-
When rules are more important than justice.
...(11) Fed. R. Crim. P. 2. (12) 391 U.S. 123 (1968). (13) Id. at 131 n.6. (14) United States v. Debrow, 346 U.S. 374, 376 (1953). (15) 378 U.S. 139 (16) Id. at 142. (17) Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 29(a) provides: Motions for directed verdict are abolished and motions for judgment of a......
-
28 APPENDIX U.S.C. § 3 Appeal As of Right-How Taken
...exacted should control interpretation of these rules. Illustrative decisions are: Fallen v. United States, 378 U.S. 139, 84 S.Ct. 1689, 12 L.Ed.2d 760 (1964) (notice of appeal by a prisoner, in the form of a letter delivered, well within the time fixed for appeal, to prison authorities for ......