Ralph Santana v. United States, 385 U.S. 848 (1966)
Uploaded by
Scribd Government DocsRalph Santana v. United States, 385 U.S. 848 (1966)
Uploaded by
Scribd Government Docs385 U.S.
848
87 S.Ct. 74
17 L.Ed.2d 78
Ralph SANTANA et al., petitioners,
v.
UNITED STATES.
No. 306.
Supreme Court of the United States
October 10, 1966
Albert J. Krieger, for petitioners.
Solicitor General Marshall, for the United States.
Petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for
the Second Circuit.
Denied.
Dissenting opinion by Mr. Justice BLACK:
I would grant these petitioners application for certiorari. The petitioners have
been sentenced from 4 to 15 years imprisonment in the penitentiary under these
alleged circumstances. After months of negotiations between petitioners and the
United States Attorney, he agreed to recommend certain minimum sentences if
petitioners would plead guilty. Petitioners agreed, pleaded guilty, and the
United States Attorney recommended the minimum sentences as promised. But
when the first petitioner appeared for sentencing before a different judge, that
judge imposed a sentence in excess of that recommended by the United States
Attorney. That petitioner them immediately sought to withdraw his guilty plea,
and the others apparently seeing the writing on the wall, immediately moved to
withdraw their pleas or adjourn their sentencing. Not only did the jude deny
these motions and proceed to sentence the remaining petitioners, but, according
to petitioners, he refused even to entertain these motions and to hear argument
thereon. Petitioners then filed timely notices of appeal. But their counsel failed
to file their trial court records in the Court of Appeals within 40 days of giving
such notices of appeal as required by Fed.Rules Crim.Proc. 39(c). Some three
weeks after this time had expired, the Government moved to dismiss the
appeals, and though petitioners' counsel then promised to docket the appeals
within 10 days and to file briefs within 30, the Court of Appeals dismissed for
want of prosecution. This was done in spite of counsel's explanation that the
delay was due to counsel's inability more quickly to determine what type of
postconviction remedy to pursue and counsel's assurance, by allegation of the
above facts, that there were substantial legal questions involved.
3
Regardless of the truthfulness of their allegations, petitioners were denied any
opportunity to substantiate them because their appeals were dismissed before
their lawyers could file their appeal papers. Thus this case is added to a
growing list of cases in which the Federal Rules have been utilized to deprive a
litigant of his day in court simply because his lawyer has failed to file some
paper within the time specified by the Rules. See, e. g., Beaufort Concrete Co.
v. Atlantic States Constr. Co., 5 Cir., 352 F.2d 460, cert. denied, 384 U.S. 1004,
86 S.Ct. 1908, 16 L.Ed.2d 1018 (dissenting opinion of Black, J.); Lord v.
Helmandollar, 121 U.S.App.D.C. 168, 348 F.2d 780, Black, J., dissenting;
Riess v. Murchison, cert. denied, 383 U.S. 946, 86 S.Ct. 1196, 16 L.Ed.2d 209,
Black, J., dissenting; Link v. Wabash R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 636, 82 S.Ct. 1386,
8 L.Ed.2d 734, Black, J., joined by The Chief Justice, dissenting.
I have always thought that where a litigant's money or property is at stake in a
civil case, 'The basic purpose of the Federal Rules is to administer justice
through fair trials, not through summary dismissals as necessary as they may be
on occasion.' Surowitz v. Hilton Hotels Corp., 383 U.S. 363, 373, 86 S.Ct. 845,
15 L.Ed.2d 807. I have no doubt that this is true in a criminal case where a
litigant's liberty is in issue. The Criminal 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 '[t]hese rules are
intended to provide for the just determination of every criminal proceeding.
They shall be construed to secure simplicity in procedure, fairness in
administration, and the elimination of unjustifiable expense and delay." Fallen
v. United States, 378 U.S. 139, 142, 84 S.Ct. 1689, 12 L.Ed.2d 760. There is no
provision in the Rules making dismissal of an appeal mandatory for failure to
file the record within the time prescribed by Rule 39(c) The Court of Appeals
acquired jurisdiction upon petitioners' filing their notices of appeal, and Rule
45(b) expressly empowered that court 'at any time in its discretion' to permit the
late filing of a record if the failure to file it on time 'was the result of excusable
neglect.'
Here I think there has been an obvious, unexcusable failure to exercise that
discretion reposed in judges to administer the Rules in the interest of 'the just
determination of every criminal proceedings.' Petitioners may languish in
prison for many years, not because their appeals were without merit, but
because, through no apparent fault on their part, their lawyers were three weeks
late in seeking to file their appeal papers. Since petitioners were never released
on bail pending appeal, I fail to see how the Government could be prejudiced
by this short delay or how consistent with the public's interest in the fair
administration of criminal justiceit could have any interest in assuring that
petitioners' appeals be disposed of other than on the merits. I would reverse and
remand these cases to the Court of Appeals for a decision on the merits of
petitioners' allegations.
