Anthony Leo Stutson v. United States (516 U.S. 193)
U.S. Supreme Court · decided January 8, 1996 · Supreme Court Database (Spaeth)
- Citation
- 516 U.S. 193 · 116 S. Ct. 600
- Decided
- January 8, 1996
- Term
- October Term 1995
- Vote
- 6–3
- Issue area
- Judicial Power
- Disposition
- Vacated and remanded
- Outcome
- Petitioning party won
- Ideological direction
- Liberal
Opinion excerpt
Per Curiam. Our per curiam opinion issued today in a civil case, Lawrence v. Chafer, ante, p. 163; contains a general discussion of the considerations that properly influence this Court in deciding whether to grant a petition for certiorari, vacate the judgment below, and remand the case (GVR) for further consideration in light of potentially pertinent matters which it appears that the lower court may not have considered. Here, we apply that analysis to a criminal case, again finding that the particularities of the case before us merit a GVR. Stutson, the petitioner in this case, is currently serving a federal prison sentence of 292 months for cocaine possession. He has had no appellate review of his legal arguments against conviction and sentence. The District Court held that his appeal was untimely and that the untimeliness was not the result of “excusable neglect” within the meaning of Rule 4(b) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, because his lawyer’s office mailed his notice of appeal so that it arrived one working day late for the 10-day deadline, and at the Court of Appeals, when it should have been sent to the District Court. The District Court’s opinion did not advert to our decision in Pioneer Investment Services Co. v. Brunswick Associates Ltd. Partnership, 507 U. S. 380 (1993), rendered one day before Stutson’s brief was due in the District Court and not…
Excerpt of a 8,573-character opinion. The full text and citation network load in the interactive viewer above.