In Re Bonner
151 U.S. 242
SCOTUS
1894
Check Treatment
Mr. Justice Field,

after stating the case, delivered the opinion of the court.

The petitioner asks for the issue of the writ of habeas corpus in order that he may be thereby set at liberty, on the ground that his imprisonment in the penitentiary at Anamosa in Iowa is in pursuance of a judgment of a- court which possessed no .authority under the law to pass sentence .upon him of imprisonment in the state penitentiary, upon his conviction of the offence for which he was indicted and tried. That is a sentence which can only be imposed where it is specifically prescribed, or where the imprisonment ordered is for a period longer than one year, or at hard labor. To an imprisonment for that period or at hard labor in a state .penitentiary infamy is attached,’ and a taint of that character can be cast only in the cases mentioned.

Section 5356 of the Revised Statutes of the United States, under which the defendant was indicted and convicted, prescribes as a punishment for the offences designated fine or imprisonment — the fine not to exceed,one thousand dollars and the imprisonment not more than one year, or by both such fine and imprisonment. Such imprisonment cannot be enforced in a state penitentiary. Its limitation being to one year, must be enforced elsewhere. Section 5541 of the Revised Statutes provides that: “ In every case where any person convicted of any offence against the United States is sentenced to imprisonment for a period longer than one year, the court by which the sentence is passed may order the same to be executed in any state jail or penitentiary within the district or State where such-court is held, the use of which jail or peni-, tentiary is allowed by the legislature of the State for that purpose.” And section 5542 provides for a similar imprisonment in a state jail or penitentiary where the person has been convicted of any offence against the United States and sentenced to imprisonment and confinement at hard labor. It follows that the court had no jurisdiction to order an imprisonment, when the place is not specified in the law, to be executed in a penitentiary when the imprisonment is not ordered for a period longer than one year or at hard labor. The statute is equivalent to a direct denial of any authority on the part of the court to direct that imprisonment be executed in a penitentiary in any cases other than those specified. Whatever discretion, therefore, the court may possess, in prescribing the. extent of imprisonment as a punishment for the offence committed, it cannot, in specifying the place of imprisonment, name one of these institutions. This has been expressly adjudged in In Re Mills, 135 U. S. 263, 270, which, in one part of it, presents features in all respects similar to those of the present case.

There the petitioner, Mills, was detained by the warden of the state penitentiary in Columbus, Ohio, pursuant to two judgments of the District Court of the United States for the Western District of Arkansas sentencing him in each case to confinement in the penitentiary of that State. Application was made by the prisoner for a writ of habeas corpus, on the ground that the court by which he was tried had no jurisdiction of the offences with which he was charged, and on the further ground that his detention in the penitentiary under the sentences, neither of which was for a longer period than one year, was contrary to the laws of the United States. The first position was not considered tenable, but the second was deemed sufficient to authorize the issue of the writ. The court held that, apart from any question as to whether the court below had jurisdiction to try the offence charged, the detention of the petitioner in the penitentiary upon .sentences, neither of which was for imprisonment longer than one year, was in violation of the laws of the United States, and that he was, therefore, entitled to be discharged from the custody of the warden of the institution. “A sentence, simply-of ‘imprisonment,1 ” said the court, “ in the case of" a person convicted of an offence against the United States' — -where, the statute prescribing the punishment does not require that the accused shall be confined in a penitentiary — cannot be executed by confinement in that institution, except in cases where the ^sentence is ‘ for a period longer than one year.’ There is consequently no. escape, from the conclusion that the judgment of the court sentencing the petitioner, to imprisonment in a penitentiary, in one case for a year and in the other for six months, was in violation of the statutes of the United States. The court below was without jurisdiction to pass any such sentences, and the orders directing the sentences of imprisonment to be executed in a penitentiary are void.”. .The court, added: “ This. is not a case of mere error, but one in which the court below transcended, its powers,” citing Ex parte Lange, 18 Wall. 163, 176; Ex parte Parks, 93 U. S. 18, 23; Ex parte Virginia, 100 U. S. 339, 343; Ex parte Rowland, 104 U. S. 604, 612; In re Coy, 127 U. S. 731, 738; and Hans Nielsen, Petitioner, 131 U. S. 176, 182.

Counsel for the government admits that, upon the authority of that' case construing the Revised Statutes, the petitioner should not have been sentenced to imprisonment • in the penitentiary; but he claims that the judgment and sentence are not for that cause void so as to entitle the petitioner to a writ of habeas 'corpus for his discharge, and he asks the court to reconsider the doctrine announced, contending that neither the reason of the law nor the authorities sustain the position. According to his argument, it would seem that the court does not exceed its jurisdiction when it directs imprisonment in a penitentiary, to which place it is expressly forbidden to order it. It would be as well, and be equally within its authority, for the court to order the imprisonment to be in the guardhouse of a fort, or the hulks of a prison-ship, or in any other place not specified in the law.-

We’ are unable to agree with the learned counsel, but are ■ of opinion that in all cases where life or liberty is affected by its proceedings, the court must, keep strictly within the limits of the law authorizing it to take jurisdiction and to try the case and to render judgment. It cannot pass beyond those . limits in any essential requirement in either stage of these proceedings ; and its authority in those particulars is not to be enlarged by any mere inferences from the law or doubtful construction of its- terms, There has been a great deal said and written, in many oases with embarrassing looseness of expression, as to the jurisdiction of the courts in criminal cases; From a somewhat extended examination of the authorities we will venture to state some rule applicable, to all of them, by which the jurisdiction as to any particular judgment of the court in such cases may be determined. It is plain that such court has jurisdiction to render a particular • judgment only when the offence charged is within the class of offences placed by the law under its jurisdiction; and when, in taking custody of the accused, and in its modes of procedure to the determination of the question of his guilt or innocence, and in rendering judgment, the court keeps within the limitations prescribed by the law, customary or statutory. When the court goes out of these limitations, its action, to the extent of such excess, is void. Proceeding within these limitations, its action may be erroneous, but not void.

To illustrate: In order that a court may take jurisdiction of a criminal case, the law must, in the first instance, authorize it to act upon a particular class of offences within which the one presented is embraced. Then comes the mode of the presentation of the offence to the court. That is specifically prescribed. If • the offence .be a felony, the accusation in the Federal court must be made by a grand jury summoned to investigate the charge of the public prosecutor against the accused. Such indictment can only be found by a specified number'of the grand jury. If not found by that number, the court cannot proceed at. all. If the offence be only a misdemeanor, not punishable by imprisonment in the penitentiary, Mackin v. United States, 117 U. S. 348, the accusation may be made by indictment of the grand jury or by information of the public prosecutor. An information is a formal charge against the accused of the offence, with such particulars as to-time, place, and attendant circumstances as will apprise him of the nature of the charge he is to meet, signed by the public prosecutor. When the indictment is found, or the information is filed, a warrant is-issued for the arrest of the accused to be brought before the court, unless he is at the time in custody, in which case an order for that purpose is made, to the end, in either case, that he may be arraigned and plead to the indictment or information. When he is brought before the court, objections to the validity or form of the indictment or information, if made, are considered, or issue is joined upon the accusation. When issue is thus joined, the court must proceed to trial by a jury, except in case of the accused’s confession. It cannot then proceed to determine the issue in any other- way. When the jury have rendéred their verdict, the court has to pronounce the proper judgment upon such verdict — and the law, in prescribing the punishment, either as to the extent, or the mode, or the place of it, should be followed. If the court is authorized to impose imprisonment,- and it exceeds the time prescribed by law, the judgment is void for the excess. If the law prescribes a place of imprisonment, the court cannot direct a different place not authorized; it cannot direct imprisonment in a penitentiary when the law assigns, that institution for imprisonment under judgments of a different character. If the case, be a capital one, and the punishment be death, it must be inflicted in the form prescribed by law. Although life is to be extinguished, it cannot be by any other mode. 'The proposition put forward by counsel that if the court has authority to inflict the punishment prescribed, its action is not voidj though it pursues any form or mode which may commend itself to its discretion, is certainly not to be tolerated. Imprisonment might be accompanied with inconceivable misery and mental suffering, by its solitary' character or other attending circumstances. Death might be inflicted by torture, or by starvation, or by drawing and quartering. All these modes, or any of them, would be permissible, if the doctrine asserted by him can be maintained.

. A question of some difficulty arises, which has been disposed of in different ways,- and that is as to the validity of a judgment which exceeds in its extent the duration of time prescribed by law. With many courts and judges — perhaps with the majority — such judgment is considered Valid to the extent to which the law allowed it to be entered, and only void for the excess. Following out this argument, it is further claimed that, therefore, the writ of habeas eorjpus cannot be invoked for the relief of a party until the time has expired to. which the judgment should have been limited. But that question is only of speculative interest here, for there is here no question of excess of punishment. The prisoner is ordered to be confined in the penitentiary, where the law does not allow the court to send him for a single hour. To deny the writ of habeas corpas in such a case is a virtual suspension of it'; and it should be constantly borne in mind that the writ was intended as a protection of the citizen from encroachment upon his liberty from any source — equally as well from the unauthorized acts of courts and judges as the unauthorized acts of individuals.

The law of our country takes care, or should take care, that not the weight of a judge’s finger shall fall upon any one except as specifically authorized. A rigid adherence to this doctrine will give far greater security and safety to.the citizen than permitting the exercise of an unlimited discretion on the part, of the courts in the imposition of punishments as to their extent, or as to the mode or place of their execution, leaving the injured party, in case of error, to the slow remedy of an appeal from the erroneous judgment or order, which, in most cases, would be unavailing to give relief. In the case before us, had an appeal been taken from the judgment of the United States court of the Indian Territory, it would hardly have reached a determination before the period of the sentence Avould have expired, and the wrong caused by the imprisonment in the penitentiary have been inflicted.

Much complaint is made that persons are often discharged from arrest and imprisonment when their conviction, upon which such imprisonment was ordered, is perfectly correct, the excess of jurisdiction on the part of the court being in enlarging the punishment or in enforcing it in a different mode or place than that provided by the law. But in such cases there need not be any failure of justice; for, where the conviction is correct and the error or excess of jurisdiction has been as stated, there does not seem to be any good reason why jurisdiction of the prisoner should not be reassumed by the court that imposed the sentence in order that its defect may be cor rected. The judges of all courts of record are magistrates, and their object should be not to turn loose upon society persons who have been justly convicted of criminal offences, but, where the punishment imposed, in the mode, extent, or place of its execution, has exceeded the law, to have it corrected by calling the attention of the court to such excess. ¥e do not perceive any departure from principle or any denial of-the petitioner’s fight in adopting such a course. He complains of the unlawfulness of his place of imprisonment. He is only entitled to relief from that unlawful feature, arid that he would obtain if opportunity be given to that court for correction in that particular. It is true where there are also errors on the trial of the case affecting the-judgment, not trenching upon its' jurisdiction, the riiere remanding the prisoner to the original court that imposed the sentence, to correct the judgment in those particulars for which the writ is issued, would not answer, for his relief would only come upon a new trial; and his remedy for such errors must be sought by appeal or writ of, error. But in a vast, majority of cases the extent and mode and place of punishment may be corrected by the original court without a new trial,, and' the party punished as he should be whilst relieved from any excess committed by the court of which he complains. In such ease the original court would only set aside what it had no authority to do and substitute. directions required by the law to be done upon the conviction of the offender.

Some of the state courts have expressed themselves strongly in favor of the adoption of this course,. where thé defects complained of consist only in the judgment, — in its extent or mode,, or place of punishment, — the conviction being in all respects regular. In Beale v. Commonwealth, 25 Penn. St. 11, 22, the Supreme Court of. Pennsylvania said: “ The common law embodies in itself sufficient reason and common sense to reject the monstrous doctrine that a prisoner, whose guilt is established, by a .regular verdict, is to escape punishment altogether, because the court committed an error in passing the sentence. If this court sanctioned such a rule, it would fail to.perform the chief duty for which it was established.”

It is true that this language was used in a case pending in the Supreme Court of a State on writ of error, but if then the court would send the case back to have the error, not touching-the verdict, corrected and justice enforced, there is the same reason why such correction should be made when the prisoner is discharged on habeas corpus for alleged defects of jurisdiction in the rendition of the judgment under which he is held. The end sought by him — to be relieved from the defects in the judgment rendered to his injury- — -is secured, and at the same time the community is not made to suffer by a failure in the enforcement of justice against him.

The court is invested with the largest power to control and direct the form of judgment to be entered in cases brought up before it on habeas corpus. Section 761 of the Revised Statutes on this subject provides that: “ The'court, or justice, or judge shall proceed in a summary way to determine the facts of the ease by hearing the testimony and arguments, and thereupon to dispose of the party as law and justice require.” It would* seem that in the interest of justice and to prevent its defeat, this court might well delay the discharge of the petitioner for such reasonable time as may be necessary to have him taken before the court where the judgment was rendered, that the defects for want of jurisdiction which are the subject of complaint in that judgment may be corrected. Medley, Petitioner, 134 U. S. 160, 174.

In the case of Coleman v. Tennessee, 97 U. S. 509, a party, who had been convicted of a capital offence, and the judgment had been confirmed by the Supreme Court of that State, was discharged by judgment of this court because it was held that the state court had no jurisdiction to try a soldier of the army of the United States for a military offence committed by him whilst in the military service and subject to the articles of war. But as it appeared that the prisoner had been tried by a court-martial regularly convened in the army for the same offence and sentenced to be shot, and had afterwards escaped, this court, in reversing the judgment of the Supreme Court of Tennessee, stated that that court could turn the prisoner over to the military authorities of the United States. He was so turned over, and the punishment was commuted to life imprisonment, find he was sent to Fort Leavenworth to serve it out.

In some cases, it is true, that no correction, can be made of the judgment, as where the court had under the law no jurisdiction of the case — that is, no right to take'cognizance of the offence alleged, and the prisoner must then be entirely discharged; but those cases will be rare, and much of the complaint that is made for discharging on habeas corpus persons who have been duly convicted will be thus removed.

Ordered, that the writ of habeas corpus issue, and that the - petitioner be discharged from, the custody of the warden of the penitentiary at Anamosa in the State of Iowa / but without prejudice to the right of the United States to take any lawful measures to have the petitioner sentenced in accordance with law upon the verdict against him,.