Opinion · Supreme Court of the United States

Dowd v. United States Ex Rel. Cook

340 U.S. 206

Type
Opinion
Court
Supreme Court of the United States
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1951-01-02
Topic
general

How later courts describe this case

  • stating "that a discriminatory denial of the statutory right of appeal is a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment" (emphasis added)
  • directing the Court to enter the appropriate order to “allow the State a reasonable time in which to afford respondent the full appellate review he would have received but for the suppression of his papers, failing which he shall be discharged”
  • review of petitioner’s claim that state’s failure to allow state habeas petition, cor-am nobis, or delayed appeal denied equal protection to petitioner
  • it was a denial of equal protection to disallow prisoner’s appeal when a warden prevented a prisoner from filing an appeal in a timely manner
  • habeas corpus granted on other grounds in Lafferty v. Cook, 949 F.2d 1546 (10th Cir.1991)
  • prison officials prevented prisoner from filing appeal papers within time allowed for appeal
  • prison warden’s suppression of papers necessary for appeal justifies petitioner’s default
  • state official frustrated appellant’s attempt to appeal

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed Dowd v. United States Ex Rel. Cook. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Authority status
pending
Cited by
269 opinions

Headnotes

  1. Constitutional Law — Equal Protection A State's discriminatory denial of a statutory right of appeal to a convicted defendant violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment; the suppression by prison authorities of a prisoner's appeal papers, thereby preventing a timely appeal, is such a violation. 340 U.S. at 207-208
  2. Habeas Corpus — Res Judicata Even assuming that the doctrine of res judicata is applicable in habeas corpus proceedings, a prior state court judgment is not res judicata of the issues in a later federal habeas corpus proceeding where that court made only a finding pertaining to a matter not in dispute and the record indicates the dispositive finding could not have been made. 340 U.S. at 208
  3. Constitutional Law — Waiver of Right of Appeal A convicted defendant does not waive his right of appeal by failing to appeal within the statutory period after a prison's ban on sending papers is lifted, where the State's delayed-appeal procedure grants no appeal as of right and is subject only to the state court's discretion, so that the defendant has never received the review he would have had as of right but for the suppression of his papers. 340 U.S. at 208-209
  4. Constitutional Law — Equal Protection Where a defendant was denied equal protection of the law by the prevention of a timely appeal, nothing short of an actual appellate determination of the merits of the conviction, according to the procedure prevailing in ordinary cases, will cure the original denial. 340 U.S. at 209
  5. Habeas Corpus — Disposition of the Matter A federal district court in a habeas corpus proceeding has power to dispose of the matter as law and justice require; where a State has unconstitutionally deprived a prisoner of appellate review, the court may allow the State a reasonable time to afford the full appellate review the prisoner would have received but for the suppression of his papers, and failing that, the prisoner shall be discharged. 340 U.S. at 209-210
DOWDv. COOK,340 U.S. 206(1951)
71 S.Ct. 262
DOWD, WARDEN,v. UNITED STATES EX REL. COOK.
CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT.
No. 66.
Argued November 28, 1950.
Decided January 2, 1951.
In a habeas corpus proceedings brought by respondent in a Federal District Court in 1948, the court found that in 1931 respondent was convicted of murder in an Indiana state court, sentenced to life imprisonment, and immediately confined in a state prison; that his timely appeal was prevented by the warden's suppression of his appeal papers pursuant to prison rules; that he sought unsuccessfully to have the state courts review his conviction bycoramnobisin 1937 and by habeas corpus in 1947; and that in 1946 his petition to the State Supreme Court for a delayed appeal was denied. The District Court ordered respondent's discharge, and the Court of Appeals affirmed.Held:
1. The prevention of respondent's original timely appeal by the warden's suppression of his appeal papers was a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Federal Constitution. Pp. 207-208.
2. Even ifres judicatawere applicable in habeas corpus proceedings, the 1946 litigation in the State Supreme Court was notresjudicataof the issues in the present case. P. 208.


3. Respondent did not "waive" his right of appeal. Pp. 208-209.
4. In the circumstances of this case, nothing short of an actual appellate determination of the merits of the conviction will cure the original denial of equal protection of the law. P. 209.
5. The judgments of the Court of Appeals and the District Court are vacated and the cause is remanded, with directions to the District Court to enter such orders as are appropriate to allow the State a reasonable time in which to afford respondent the full appellate review he would have received but for the suppression of his appeal papers, in default whereof by the State respondent shall be discharged. Pp. 209-210.
180 F.2d 212, judgment vacated.Page 207
In a habeas corpus proceeding seeking respondent's release
from imprisonment under sentence of a state court,
the District Court ordered respondent discharged. The
Court of Appeals affirmed.180 F.2d 212. This Court
granted certiorari.340 U.S. 849.Judgments vacated
and cause remanded, p. 210.
Charles F. O'Connor, Deputy Attorney General of Indiana, argued the cause for petitioner. With him on the brief wereJ. Emmett McManamon, Attorney General, andGeorge W. HandandMerl M. Wall, Deputy Attorneys General.William S. Ishamargued the cause and filed a brief for respondent.
MR. JUSTICE BLACK delivered the opinion of the Court.
Respondent, Lawrence E. Cook, brought this habeas corpus proceeding in the United States District Court in 1948. After hearing evidence, the District Court found as follows: In 1931 respondent was convicted of murder in an Indiana court, sentenced to life imprisonment, and immediately confined in the state penitentiary. Within the six-month period allowed for appeal as of right by Indiana law, respondent prepared proper appeal papers. His efforts to file the documents in the state supreme court, however, were frustrated by the warden acting pursuant to prison rules. Subsequently, but after the six-month period had expired, the ban on sending papers from the prison was lifted and respondent unsuccessfully sought to have the state courts review his conviction bycoram nobisin 19371and by habeas corpus in 1945.2Page 208In 1946 his petition to the Supreme Court of Indiana for a delayed appeal was denied.3On these findings, the District Court held that there had been a denial of equal protection of the law for which the State provided no remedy, and ordered respondent's discharge. The Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed.180 F.2d 212.

In this Court the State admits, as it must, that a discriminatory denial of the statutory right of appeal is a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.Cochranv.Kansas,316 U.S. 255. It contends, however, that the 1946 litigation in the Supreme Court of Indiana established that the prison authorities had not prevented a timely appeal by respondent, and that the principle ofres judicataprecluded a contrary determination of this fact by the District Court. Even if the rule ofres judicatawere applicable in habeas corpus proceedings, but cf.Waleyv.Johnston,316 U.S. 101,105, it would have no bearing in the present case. The Indiana court made only one finding, and that pertained to a matter not now in dispute.4Moreover, so far as the suppression of respondent's original appeal papers is concerned, the record before us strongly indicates that the finding ascribed to the state supreme court could not have been made.

The State also contends that despite the denial of equal protection, respondent is no longer entitled to relief because he "waived" his right of appeal. The argument is that the ban on sending papers from the prison suspended the statutory limitation on the time for review so thatPage 209respondent could have appealed within six months from the date the restraint was removed in 1933. We cannot accept this view. In 1931 Indiana appellate jurisdiction apparently was conditioned on a timely filing of the proper papers.5More recently, the rigid rule may have been relaxed so as to provide discretionary delayed appeals for convicted defendants.6But we find no indication either that there is any time limitation on the taking of delayed appeals or that such appeals will ever be heardas of right. The record shows that respondent's delayed appeal was denied in 1946, apparently as a matter within the state court's discretion.7Consequently, respondent has never had the same review of the judgment against him as he would have had as of right in 1931 but for the suppression of his papers. We therefore agree with the Court of Appeals that, while the State's "waiver" theory is ingenious, it is without merit. Under the peculiar circumstances of this case, nothing short of an actual appellate determination of the merits of the conviction — according to the procedure prevailing in ordinary cases — would cure the original denial of equal protection of the law.

There remains the question of the disposition to be made of this case. Fortunately, we are not confronted with the dilemma envisaged by the State of having toPage 210choose between ordering an absolute discharge of the prisoner and denying him all relief. The District Court has power in a habeas corpus proceeding to "dispose of the matter as law and justice require."28 U.S.C. § 2243. The Fourteenth Amendment precludes Indiana from keeping respondent imprisoned if it persists in depriving him of the type of appeal generally afforded those convicted of crime. On the other hand, justice does not require Indiana to discharge respondent if such an appeal is granted and reveals a trial record free from error. Now that this Court has determined the federal constitutional question, Indiana may find it possible to provide the appellate review to which respondent is entitled. The judgments of the Court of Appeals and the District Court are vacated and the case remanded. On remand, the District Court should enter such orders as are appropriate to allow the State a reasonable time in which to afford respondent the full appellate review he would have received but for the suppression of his papers, failing which he shall be discharged. SeeMahlerv.Eby,264 U.S. 32,46.It is so ordered.Page 211
  1. Page 207 SeeCookv.State,219 Ind. 234,37 N.E.2d 63;State ex rel.Cookv.Wickens,222 Ind. 383,53 N.E.2d 630. ↩
  2. Page 207State ex rel. Cookv.Howard,223 Ind. 694,64 N.E.2d 25, cert. denied327 U.S. 808. ↩
  3. Page 208 This order is unreported. Certiorari to review the denial of the petition for delayed appeal was sought here and denied.330 U.S. 841. ↩
  4. Page 208 The finding was that "the basic allegation of said petition to-wit: that [Cook's] counsel refused, without pay, to take an appeal is not true . . . ." ↩
  5. Page 209Dudleyv.State,200 Ind. 398,161 N.E. 1;Farlowv.State,196 Ind. 295,142 N.E. 849;Farrellv.State,85 Ind. 221;Winsettv.State,54 Ind. 437;Lichtenfelsv.State,53 Ind. 161. ↩
  6. Page 209 The Supreme Court of Indiana suggested in 1945 that this respondent might be able to take a delayed appeal.State ex rel. Cookv.Howard,223 Ind. 694,64 N.E.2d 25. Cf. alsoWarrenv.IndianaTelephone Co.,217 Ind. 93,26 N.E.2d 399;State ex rel. Whitev.Hilgemann,218 Ind. 572,34 N.E.2d 129; but cf.Johnsv.State,227 Ind. 737,89 N.E.2d 281. In 1947 Indiana enacted the more liberal rule into its statutory law. Burns' Ind. Ann. Stat., 1942 Replacement Vol. (Cum. Supp. 1949), § 9-3305. ↩
  7. Page 209 See note 3supra;cf.Sweetv.State,226 Ind. 566,81 N.E.2d 679. ↩