*1 HEFLIN v. UNITED STATES. Argued
No. January 14-15, 137. February 24, 1959. Decided 1959. Jerome A. Cooper, acting under appointment by the Court, 358 S. 803, argued the cause and filed a brief for petitioner.
Theodore George Gilinsky argued the cause for the him States. With the brief Solicitor were Rankin, General Attorney Assistant General Anderson and Beatrice Rosenberg. Douglas délivered Justice
Mr.
Court. *2 convicted and indicted were two others and
Petitioner Bank Federal violations charging three counts under tak charged count 2113. One § 18 U. S. C. Robbery Act, assaulting and violence, and by force property ing the in the course persons of several the lives jeopardizing and count Another (d).1 of 2113 § in violation taking, and store, conceal, “receive, possess, they did charged (c).2 of §2113 violation money in stolen of dispose” imposed The sentence conspiracy. a charged count A third above, mentioned count on the first years was 10 3 3 expira run on begin to count conspiracy on the charg the count day1 on and year and first, of tion begin this sentence property, of the stolen receipt ing conspiracy sentence on expiration to run count. Prince in our before decision place took events these
All peti Shortly thereafter 322. v. United C. 28 U. S. § this proceeding instituted tioner 1This subsection any commit, offense attempting to committing, or in “Whoever, in person, section, assaults (a) (b) of this and in subsections defined dangerous by the use of any person jeopardy the life puts in or imprisoned $10,000 or than device, shall be fined weapon or years, or twenty-five both.” not more states: subsection This barters, sells, or stores, conceals, receives, possesses, “Whoever knowing thing of value money other of, any property or disposes savings loan bank, or a and from been taken to have the same shall (b) of this section of subsection association, in violation (b) for by said subsection provided punishment subject to taker.” re- appeal, after was a This corrected F. 2d 371. v. United ported in Heflin part as follows: reads in relevant Section of a established custody court ground upon the be released claiming Act of complaining lawfully he could not be convicted under e., subsections i. (d) both of feloniously § receiving feloniously taking property. the same District Court denied motion. The Appeals Court of affirmed. 251 F. 2d granted 69. (357 We certiorari 935) U. S. because of an apparent conflict between that decision and the Prince case.
I. There is a question preliminary jurisdiction. Petitioner in custody now under the 10-year sentence admittedly is valid. he has completed Since that sentence nor the consecutive conspiracy sentence, it is argued that relief by way of not be had.
We reviewed United States Hayman, 342 U. S. 205, the of 2255 history and emphasized that its *3 was to minimize some of the difficulties involved the use of habeas corpus. It is now argued that when con- that the imposed sentence was in violation of the Constitution or States, laws the United or that the court jurisdiction was without impose sentence, such or that the sentence was in excess of the by law, maximum authorized subject otherwise to collateral attack, may move the imposed court which the vacate, sentence to set aside or the correct sentence.
“A may motion for such relief any be made at time. “Unless the and the motion files and records of the case conclu- sively prisoner show that the relief, is entitled to no the court shall cause notice be upon thereof to served the attorney, United States grant prompt hearing thereon, determine the issues and make find- ings of fact and respect conclusions of law with thereto. If the court judgment finds that jurisdiction, rendered without or that the sentence was not authorized open law or otherwise attack, to collateral or that there infringe- has been such a denial or rights ment of the prisoner constitutional as to render the judgment attack, vulnerable collateral the court shall vacate and judgment set the discharge prisoner and shall aside or resentence grant him or a new trial or may appear correct sentence as appropriate. may
“A court entertain determine such motion without re- quiring production prisoner hearing. at . . .” 62 Stat. 967, amended 63 Stat. 105.
418 2255, no imposed, sentences
secutive can 131, 138), Hill, 293 v. (McNally corpus habeas has prisoner which a sentence question be used issue. is divided to serve. begun for such says motion 2255 when think Some says. it what means time,” it at made may be will affect made, if sentence, the correction them To even by § protected released,” to be “the A immediately realized. right will though that by several shared view, are of however, majority, only to attack 2255 is available that § Appeals,5 Courts inYet custody. inis” a sentence Rules of the Federal 35 relief under view their 6 matters where (at least is available Procedure Criminal here involved), question are not record dehors its face.7 illegal on imposed was the sentence being whether 5 v. 197; States United Bradford, F. 194 2d v. United States Tees, F. Bogish ex rel. v. 670; McGann, F. 2d Duggins 247; v. United States, F. 2d 71; Fooshee v. Oughton 704; States, F. 2d 479; v. United States, F. 2d Crow States, 244 F. 2d 578; v. United v. United Hoffman F. 2d 501. 378; Miller United part: provides in 6Rule illegal “The court 7 case, the original is made Rule 35 the motion Since deci Appeals of the Court of by certiorari which review within time (2). The *4 Supreme Rule days. sought is 30 should be sion until after not filed in this case was writ of certiorari petition for Nevertheless, because judgment below. days from passage of 30 juris no because 35 and Rule be made under motions successive dispense with agrees to involved, majority is dictional statute circuity. To wasteful to avoid in order our requirements of question but is no available, there 2255 is us who deem § those 90-day period filed within was time. It petition was in a For type of suit. (e) governing S. C. provided 28 U. § corpus habeas writ of for a petition a like motion proceeding 333, 336), is not Dyche, (Riddle v. suit. independent civil prosecution but original criminal in II. heldWe Prince v. United supra, that the entry crime of into a bank with intent to rob was not intended by Congress to be a separate offense from the consummated robbery. We ruled that entering with intent to steal, which is “the id., heart of the crime,” at 328, “merges into the completed if robbery crime consummated.” gave Ibid. We the Act that construc- tion because we resolve an in ambiguity lenity favor of required when to determine the intent of punishing multiple aspects of the same criminal act.
Subsection (c) with which we are pri- now marily concerned, came into the in 1940. legis- law lative history is meagre. The Report Senate (S. Rep. No. 1801, Cong., 76th Sess.) is captioned “Punishment for Receivers of Loot From Bank Robbers.” The Report states, “This bill would add another subsection to further make it a crime, with less severe penalties (maximum $5,000 fine and 10 imprisonment, or both) willfully become receiver or possessor of property taken in violation of the statute,” p. 1. Similarly the House Report states “Present law does not make it a separate substantive offense knowingly to possess receive prop- erty stolen from a bank violation of the Federal Bank Robbery Act, and this is designed bill to cover the omis- sion.” H. R. Rep. No. 1668, 76th Cong., 3d Sess., p. 1.
This clue to the purpose of Congress argues strongly against position of the Government. From these Reports it seems clear that subsection designed to increase punishment for him who robs a bank but provide punishment for those who receive the loot from the robber. We find no of Congress to pyramid penalties for lesser offenses following the rob- bery. It may be true that in logic those who up divide the loot following a robbery receive from robbers and thus multiply the offense. inBut view of the legislative his- *5 to trying Congress think we of subsection
tory multiply to wrongdoers, group new reach a themselves. robbers bank offense
Reversed. Frank- Stewart, whom Mr. Justice Me. Justice and Harlan, Clark, Justice Mr. furter, Mr. Justice concurring. join, Whittaker Mr. Justice it clear I think opinion, the Court’s joining While available 2255 is C. § 28 U. S. for relief a motion inis prisoner which a sentence attack only to is what That says. the statute That is what custody. courts, federal is what That history shows. legislative have application, the statute’s daily with almost faced kind as to notions Personal unanimously concluded. might have Congress statute post-conviction aof irrelevant entirely course, are, enact or should enacted inquiry. to the used has which The words
First. that: provides Section
ambiguous. be claiming .. . custody under which the court . move . . released the sentence.” aside or vacate, set for such “A motion further The statute simply provision latter This made at may be is no statute there corpus, in habeas that, means of laches the doctrine and that judicata, res limitations, no inapplicable. is 2255 is reviewed history of § legislative
Second. Vinson Justice Chief Mr. in the length Hayman, 342 in United for the Court wrote of a genesis No chronicle S. 205. because authentic, could enactment legislative be found history legislative the entire almost Con- Judicial recommendations deliberations *6 421 ference of the United States, over which Mr. Chief Justice Vinson then presided. The opinion in Hayman clearly shows that “the sole purpose” of the statute “was to min- imize the difficulties encountered in habeas corpus hear- ings by affording the same rights in another and more convenient forum.” 342 S.,U. at 219. Those difficulties detailed opinion. There is not one word to indicate intent to alter the principle basic of habeas corpus that relief is available only to one entitled to be released from custody. very officeof the Great Writ, its only function,,is to
inquire into the legality of the detention of one in cus- tody. It is unnecessary to paraphrase here Mr. Justice penetrating Stone’s discussion McNally Hill, v. 293 U. S. or to incorporate the thorough review of legal history there contained. It will suffice to note only the Court’s conclusion: “Without restraint of liberty, the writ will not issue. Equally, without restraint which is unlaw- ful, the writ may not be used. A sentence which the prisoner has not begun to serve cannot be cause restraint which the statute makes subject of inquiry.” (Citations omitted.) S., at 138.
Third. It
is something of an understatement
simply
say
these views are
“shared
several Courts of
Appeals.” So far as I have been able to find,
courts,
these
at least since
Hayman
decision, have been unanimous
in holding that a motion under § 2255 may
be filed
by a prisoner claiming the right to be released. These are
the courts continually faced with problems arising under
many of them
given
have
careful considera
tion
very issue. United
v. Bradford, 194
F. 2d
(C.
197
A. 2d Cir.); United States v. McGann, 245
F.
(C.
2d
A.
670
2d Cir.); United States ex
Bogish
rel.
v.
Tees,
422 v. United Juelich Cir.); 6thA. (C.
States, 479 F. 2d 240 v. United Oughton Cir.); A. 6th (C. 424 States, 257 F. 2d United v. Williams Cir.); A. 9th (C. States, 215 F. 2d 578 v. United Cir.); A. 9th (C. States, F. 2d Hoffman v. United Toliver Cir.); A. 9th (C. States, F. 2d Cir.); Miller A. 9th (C. States, F. 2d 804 v. Cir.); Smith A. (C. 9th Cir.). A. 9th (C. F. avail was not case in this believing that Although *7 Government and indeed think, I able petitioner available was concedes, that That Proc. Crim. Fed. Rules of the of Rule virtue illegal an “The court rule two effective became The rule at entirely an and has of § the enactment before existing law a codification It was history. different by the created any doubt to remove intended was 55, 67, Mayer, in decision illegal to correct a District jurisdiction to the it was the term expiration of after the entered.* field of collateral broader 35 covers Rule
Whether dehors matters consider hearing attack where not here determine. need we necessary, record one where present like certainly covers case its face. illegal the sentence is that claim the Court’s I with agree and because reason, For concur Robbery Act, I Bank Federal construction the judgment. relationship be- Judge Miller’s Shackelford discussion *See Duggins v. 35 in and Rule tween § Cir.). (C. A. 6th