1. The remedy by habeas corpus is available in the courts of
Nebraska for determining whether the petitioner's incarceration is
in violation of the Federal Constitution. P.
312 U. S.
331.
2. A petition for habeas corps alleging facts showing a case of
incarceration for a serious offense, resulting from a plea of
guilty into the making of which the petitioner, an uneducated man
unaided
Page 312 U. S. 330
by counsel, was tricked by state officer, states a cause of
action under the due process clause of the Fourteenth amendment. P.
312 U. S.
334.
Reversed.
Certiorari, 311 U.S. 633, to review the affirmance of a judgment
dismissing an application for writ of habeas corpus.
MR. JUSTICE BLACK delivered the opinion of the Court.
The question presented is whether petitioner's application for
writ of habeas corpus filed in a Nebraska state court alleged facts
which, if proven, entitled him to release from prison because he
was held pursuant to a court judgment rendered in violation of
rights guaranteed him by the federal Constitution. The trial court
declined to issue the writ, holding that the petition failed to
state a cause of action justifying the relief prayed. Without
requiring the state to answer and without giving petitioner an
opportunity to prove his allegations, the application was
dismissed. A motion for reconsideration, setting out additional
facts, was similarly dismissed. On appeal, the Supreme Court of
Nebraska affirmed without opinion.
The judgment of the Nebraska Supreme Court is a final and
authoritative answer to petitioner's contention that his
imprisonment was illegal under the state's constitution or laws.
But petitioner also contended that
Page 312 U. S. 331
his imprisonment was illegal under the federal Constitution.
And, in denying the writ, the Nebraska court necessarily held that
petitioner's allegations -- even if proven in their entirety --
would not entitle him to habeas corpus, even if the petition showed
a deprivation of federally protected rights. [
Footnote 1] It was to review this question that we
granted certiorari. 311 U.S. 633.
But, before examining the pleadings in order to determine
whether the allegations showed a deprivation of federally protected
rights, it is necessary to consider a preliminary contention urged
by the state. The tenor of this contention is that, under Nebraska
law, petitioner could not have his asserted federal rights
determined in habeas corpus proceedings. And, supporting this
contention, there is in the record a letter to petitioner from the
trial judge who originally denied the writ -- a letter indicating
that petitioner's only relief from illegal imprisonment was by
application to the Nebraska Parole and Pardon Board. This letter is
not, however, a judicial determination, and apparently no state
statutes or court decisions compel the result it indicates. Nor can
we lightly assume that Nebraska affords no corrective process for
one who is imprisoned under a judgment rendered in violation of
rights protected by the federal Constitution. That Constitution is
the supreme law of the land, and "[u]pon the state courts, equally
with the courts of the Union rests the obligation to guard and
enforce every right secured by that Constitution." [
Footnote 2] Moreover, while
Page 312 U. S. 332
the opinions of the Nebraska courts do not mark clearly the
exact boundaries within which Nebraska confines the historic remedy
of habeas corpus, the Nebraska Supreme Court has held that the writ
was properly invoked to obtain release from imprisonment resulting
from deprivation of constitutional rights. [
Footnote 3] Because of this, and because a contrary
conclusion would apparently mean that Nebraska provides no judicial
remedy whatsoever for petitioner, even though he can show he is
imprisoned in violation of procedural safeguards commanded by the
federal Constitution, [
Footnote
4] we are unable to reach the conclusion that habeas corpus is
unavailable to him under Nebraska law.
It is therefore our duty to examine petitioner's allegations in
order to determine whether they show that his imprisonment is the
result of a deprivation of rights guaranteed him by the federal
Constitution. The heart of his charge is that he, an ignorant
layman not represented by counsel, was tricked into pleading guilty
to a serious offense. Among the specific allegations are:
Petitioner, without being informed of the charges against him,
was arrested in one county, and then removed to another county for
two days. There, he was told he was wanted for burglary in a third
county (Valley County), but would be dealt with leniently if he
would plead guilty. After a long distance telephone conversation
between petitioner and a man identified as the prosecuting attorney
of Valley County, a conversation arranged and listened to by the
Valley County sheriff, a sentence of not over three years was
agreed upon. Petitioner was soon thereafter transferred to the
Valley
Page 312 U. S. 333
County jail. His efforts to get copies of the charges filed
against him were unsuccessful, the sheriff telling him that this
was "not necessary," since "everything had been
fixed.'" After
three days in the Valley County jail, and "without ever having had
a copy of the charge," petitioner was taken before a trial
judge,
"summarily arraigned, and, upon his prearranged plea of guilty,
sentenced, to his surprise and consternation, to a term of twenty
years' imprisonment in the Nebraska State Penitentiary."
Petitioner, an uneducated layman, had no knowledge of law or
legal procedure, and had never before been arrested or been in a
courtroom for any purpose whatsoever. Upon imposition of the
twenty-year sentence, however, he vigorously protested, asked the
court and the prosecuting attorney for a copy of the charge to
which he had pleaded guilty, and, this request being refused, asked
permission to withdraw his plea of guilty, requested appointment of
an attorney to advice and assist him, and asked that he be given a
proper opportunity to defend himself. All of these requests were
refused by the court, and, "within the hour," he was on his way to
the penitentiary, accompanied by the sheriff. After arriving at the
penitentiary, he discovered "that he had been duped and inveigled
into entering a plea of guilty to a charge of burglary with
explosives . . . " punishable in Nebraska by twenty years to life
imprisonment. Simple burglary, to which petitioner agreed to plead
guilty, upon condition that he be sentenced to three years, carries
a penalty of one to ten years. During the eight years petitioner
has been in the penitentiary, he has done everything an uneducated
person could do to bring his illegal imprisonment to the attention
of the Nebraska authorities, but has not been able to get counsel
because of lack of funds. His appeals to the Board of Pardons have
been futile. Because of his ignorance of his rights,
Page 312 U. S. 334
and because of the trial court's failure to appoint, and his
inability to obtain, counsel, the original sentence was not
appealed.
These allegations, if true, undermine and invalidate the
judgment upon which petitioner's imprisonment rests. The
circumstances under which petitioner asserts he was entrapped and
imprisoned in the penitentiary are wholly irreconcilable with the
constitutional safeguards of due process. For his petition presents
a picture of a defendant, without counsel, bewildered by court
processes strange and unfamiliar to him, and inveigled by false
statements of state law enforcement officers into entering a plea
of guilty. The petitioner charged that he had been denied any real
notice of the true nature of the charge against him, the first and
most universally recognized requirement of due process; that,
because of deception by the state's representatives, he had pleaded
guilty to a charge punishable by twenty years' to life
imprisonment; that his request for the benefit and advice of
counsel had been denied by the court, and that he had been rushed
to the penitentiary, where his ignorance, confinement, and poverty
had precluded the possibility of his securing counsel in order to
challenge the procedure by regular processes of appeal. If these
things happened, petitioner is imprisoned under a judgment invalid
because obtained in violation of procedural guaranties protected
against state invasion through the Fourteenth Amendment. [
Footnote 5] The state court erroneously
decided that the petition stated no cause of action. If petitioner
can prove his allegations, the judgment upon which his imprisonment
rests was rendered in violation of due process and cannot
stand.
Reversed and remanded.
[
Footnote 1]
It is suggested that the Nebraska Supreme Court's final judgment
of affirmance rested on petitioner's failure to file a printed
brief in that court, and that this was an adequate nonfederal
ground, precluding our review of the federal question raised. But
this contention is obviously not sound, because the Supreme Court
denied petitioner's motion for relief from the rule requiring
printed briefs solely in the ground that, upon examination of the
whole record, the court had found the appeal to be without
merit.
[
Footnote 2]
Mooney v. Holohan, 294 U. S. 103,
294 U. S.
113.
[
Footnote 3]
In re Resler, 115 Neb. 335, 338-340, 212 N.W. 765.
And see Kuwitzky v. O'Grady, 135 Neb. 466, 468, 282 N.W.
396.
Cf. Darling v. Fenton, 120 Neb. 829, 235 N.W.
582.
[
Footnote 4]
See Newcomb v. State, 129 Neb. 69, 261 N.W. 348.
[
Footnote 5]
Cf. Walker v. Johnston ante, p.
312 U. S. 275;
Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U. S. 458;
Mooney v. Holohan, 294 U. S. 103.
And see Chambers v. Florida, 309 U.
S. 227.