Smith v. Bennett Marshall v. Bennett
| Decision Date | 17 April 1961 |
| Docket Number | 177,Nos. 174,s. 174 |
| Citation | 365 U.S. 708,81 S.Ct. 895,6 L.Ed.2d 39 |
| Parties | Neal Merle SMITH, Petitioner, v. John E. BENNETT, Warden. Richard W. MARSHALL, Petitioner, v. John E. BENNETT, Warden |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Mr. Luther L. Hill, Jr., Des Moines, Iowa, for petitioner in each case.
Mr. Evan Hultman, Waterloo, Iowa, for respondent in both cases.
The issue in these habeas corpus cases concerns the validity, under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, of the requirement of Iowa law that necessitates the payment of statutory filing fees1 by an indigent prisoner of the State before an application for a writ of habeas corpus or the allowance of an appeal in such proceedings will be docketed. As we noted in Burns v. State of Ohio, 1959, 360 U.S. 252, 256, 79 S.Ct. 1164, 1167, 3 L.Ed.2d 1209, '(t)he State's commendable frankness in (these) case(s) has simplified the issues.' In its brief, the State conceded that 'indigent convicted criminals are unable to file a petition for habeas corpus in Iowa.' We hold that to interpose any financial consideration between an indigent prisoner of the State and his exercise of a state right to sue for his liberty is to deny that prisoner the equal protection of the laws.
In No. 174, Neal Merle Smith v. John E. Bennett, Warden, the petitioner was convicted and sentenced to serve 10 years in the state penitentiary for the offense of breaking and entering. In due course he was released on parole. After a short period, however, this was revoked for violation of its conditions. Petitioner was arrested and was thereafter returned to the penitentiary for completion of his sentence. He then forwarded to the Clerk of the District Court of Lee County, Iowa, a petition for a writ of habeas corpus with accompanying motion to proceed in forma pauperis and an affidavit of proverty. In the petition he raised constitutional questions as to the validity of the warrant of arrest under which he was taken into custody and returned to the penitentiary. The Clerk refused to docket the petition without payment of the $4 filing fee. Petitioner then filed a motion in the Iowa Supreme Court for leave to appeal in forma pauperis, together with a pauper's oath, which the court denied without opinion. On appeal to this Court, we dismissed the appeal but treated the papers as a petition for certiorari, which was granted, limited to the above question, 363 U.S. 834, 80 S.Ct. 1624, 4 L.Ed.2d 1723.
In No. 177, Richard W. Marshall v. John E. Bennett, Warden, the petitioner, who was represented by counsel, pleaded guilty to an information charging the offense of breaking and entering and was sentenced to 10 years' imprisonment at the Iowa State Penitentiary. A year later he forwarded to the Clerk of the District Court of Lee County, Iowa, a petition for a writ of habeas corpus alleging that he was detained 'contrary to the provisions of the 14th Amendment, § 1' because the information to which he pleaded guilty was 'fatal on its face' in that 'it does not charge Petitioner with 'intent" and further because his 'plea thereon was obtained by coercion and duress.' Accompanying the petition was a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and a pauper's affidavit. Thereafter, in an unreported written order, the court refused to docket the petition without the payment of the statutory filing fee but, nevertheless, examined the petition and found it 'would have to be denied if properly presented to the Court.' Petitioner forwarded appeal papers to the Supreme Court of Iowa but that application was also denied. Petitioner's motion for leave to proceed here in forma pauperis was granted, as was his petition for certiorari, which was limited to the question posed in the opening paragraph, supra. 363 U.S. 838, 80 S.Ct. 1617, 4 L.Ed.2d 1724.
In Burns v. State of Ohio, supra, we decided that a State could not 'constitutionally require * * * an indigent defendant in a criminal case (to) pay a filing fee before permitting him to file a motion for leave to appeal in one of its courts.' 360 U.S. at page 253, 79 S.Ct. at page 1166. That decision was predicated upon our earlier holding in Griffin v. People of State of Illinois, 1956, 351 U.S. 12, 76 S.Ct. 585, 100 L.Ed. 891, that an indigent criminal defendant was entitled to a transcript of the record of his trial, or an adequate substitute therefor, where needed to effectively prosecute an appeal from his conviction. The gist of these cases is that because '(t)here is no rational basis for assuming that indigents' motions for leave to appeal will be less meritorious than those of other defendants,' Burns v. State of Ohio, supra, 360 U.S. at pages 257—258, 79 S.Ct. at page 1168, '(t)here can be no equal justice where the kind of trial a man gets depends on the amount of money he has,' Griffin v. People of State of Illinois, supra, 351 U.S. at page 19, 76 S.Ct. at page 591, and consequently that '(t)he imposition by the State of financial barriers restricting the availability of appellate review for indigent criminal defendants has no place in our heritage of Equal Justice Under Law.' Burns v. State of Ohio, supra, 360 U.S. at page 258, 79 S.Ct. at page 1169. Iowa had long anticipated the rule announced in these cases, i.e., indigent defendants may appeal from criminal convictions without prior payment of filing fees, I.C.A. § 789.20 (enacted in 1917), and transcripts are provided by the county to be used in such appeals, I.C.A. § 792.8 (enacted in 1878). As the State points out, those cases 'were concerned with the rights of a convicted criminal seeking to make a direct attack upon his conviction by appeal * * *.' Habeas corpus, on the other hand, is not an attack on the conviction but on the validity of the detention and is, therefore, a collateral proceeding. The State, however, admits that the Great Writ 'is an available postconviction civil remedy in * * * Iowa' and concedes that a prisoner's inability to pay the $4 fee would render it unavailable to him. The question is therefore clearly posed: Since Iowa does make the writ available to prisoners who have the $4 fee, may it constitutionally preclude its use by those who do not?
The State insists that it may do so for three reasons. First, habeas corpus is a civil action brought by a prisoner to obtain his personal liberty, a civil right, and if it must be made available to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Motley v. Taylor
...Griffin to overturn Chicago's practice of only providing free transcripts for appeals in felony cases); Smith v. Bennett , 365 U.S. 708, 713, 81 S.Ct. 895, 6 L.Ed.2d 39 (1961) (holding that states must "docket applications for the post-conviction remedy of habeas corpus by indigent prisoner......
-
Franklin v. Murphy
...1495. We recognize that an indigent may not be required to pay a filing fee to file a habeas corpus petition, Smith v. Bennett, 365 U.S. 708, 81 S.Ct. 895, 6 L.Ed.2d 39 (1961), nor be required to pay to file a civil action involving a fundamental constitutional right. Boddie v. Connecticut,......
-
Pennsylvania v. Finley
...Ross v. Moffitt, supra; Johnson v. Avery, 393 U.S. 483, 488, 89 S.Ct. 747, 750, 21 L.Ed.2d 718 (1969); Smith v. Bennett, 365 U.S. 708, 713, 81 S.Ct. 895, 898, 6 L.Ed.2d 39 (1961). " 'Due process' emphasizes fairness between the State and the individual dealing with the State." Ross v. Moffi......
-
Weaver v. Toombs
...equal protection. We have no quarrel with Bullock v. Carter, 405 U.S. 134, 92 S.Ct. 849, 31 L.Ed.2d 92 (1972); Smith v. Bennett, 365 U.S. 708, 81 S.Ct. 895, 6 L.Ed.2d 39 (1961); Boddie v. Connecticut, 401 U.S. 371, 91 S.Ct. 780, 28 L.Ed.2d 113 (1971); Lindsey v. Normet, 405 U.S. 56, 92 S.Ct......
-
Racial Justice and Federal Habeas Corpus as Postconviction Relief from State Convictions
...or obstructed. For example, a state may not make the writ available only to prisoners who could pay a $4 filing fee. Smith v. Bennett, 365 U.S. 708, 712-14 (1961). The Court has insisted that, for the indigent as well as the affluent prisoner, postconviction proceedings must be more than a ......
-
Double helix, double bind: factual innocence and postconviction DNA testing.
...to a transcript at state expense for appeal purposes can apply in civil cases if the interest is sufficiently strong); Smith v. Bennett, 365 U.S. 708, 708-09 (1961) (holding that a filing fee to process state habeas application must be waived for indigent prisoner); Burns v. Ohio, 360 U.S. ......
-
Where Is the Strike Zone? Arguing for a Uniformly Narrow Interpretation of the Prison Litigation Reform Act's "three Strikes" Rule
...Clause of the First Amendment: Defining the Right, 60 Ohio St. L.J. 557, 562 (1999).66. See Ex parte Hull, 312 U.S. 546; Smith v. Bennett, 365 U.S. 708 (1961); Johnson v. Avery, 393 U.S. 483 (1969). In Smith, the Court did utilize the Equal Protection Clause, but it was only applicable beca......
-
Table of Cases
...(1972): 21.3(1)(a) Simon v. E. Ky. Welfare Rights Org., 426 U.S. 26, 96 S. Ct. 1917, 48 L. Ed. 2d 450 (1976): 21.3(1)(a) Smith v. Bennett, 365 U.S. 708, 81 S. Ct. 895, 6 L. Ed. 2d 39 (1961): 24.8(1), 24.8(4) S. Ry. Co. v. Clift, 260 U.S. 316, 43 S. Ct. 126, 67 L. Ed. 283 (1922): 27.3(2) Ste......