U.S. Supreme Court Holds Defendant to Strict Statutory Deadline for Appeal Despite Judge's Error
Keith Bowles was denied an opportunity to appeal the denial of his application for habeas corpus because his criminal defense attorney filed his notice of appeal too late. He did, however, meet the filing deadline given to him by the district court judge. Justice Souter said "It is intolerable for the judicial system to treat people this way, and there is not even a technical justification for condoning this bait and switch." Bowles v. Russell, Slip Opinion 06-5306 (June 14, 2007).
Keith Bowles was convicted, in 1999, of murder and sentenced to 15 years to life in prison. Following an unsuccessful appeal at the state level, Bowles filed an application for habeas corpus, which was denied in the federal district court. He failed to file his notice of appeal within the 30 days deadline. Fed. Rule App. Proc. (4)(a)(1)(A); 28 U.S.C. §2107(a). Bowles moved to reopen the filing period. On February 10, 2004, he was granted 14 days in which to file his appeal. Rule 4(a)(6); §2107(c). Unfortunately, the judge erred by telling Bowles he had to file by February 27. He filed his notice of appeal on February 26, within the judge's stated deadline, but beyond the 14-day statutory deadline.
Common sense and equity clearly tell us that Bowles should have been allowed to file his appeal, but the U.S. Supreme Court applied a strict constructionist interpretation to deny his appeal. Justice Thomas wrote, for the majority, that because the 14-day extension is provided for by statute, rather than by federal court rules, failure to meet the deadline deprives a court of jurisdiction to entertain an appeal. See generally Bowles.
Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure describe a court's authority to reopen and extend the period for filing a notice of appeal. Rule 4(a)(6). The 14-day deadline, itself, is provided for in the statute, only. §2107(c). The statute does not give the court authority to reopen or extend the deadline beyond the 14 days.
The majority of the Court said the taking of an appeal within the prescribed time is "mandatory and jurisdictional." Bowles at 4. Griggs v. Provident Consumer Discount Co., 459 U.S. 56, 61 (1982). Missing a deadline to file, statutorily deprives a court of jurisdiction to hear the appeal.
According to the Court, time limits set by statute must be treated as jurisdictional. Justice Thomas reasoned that because Congress decides what cases federal courts have jurisdiction to consider, Congress can determine when and under what conditions courts can hear them. Bowles at 7. The Justice suggested that if Congress wanted to give courts an ability to hear an appeal even though the 14-day extended deadline to file has been missed, it is up to Congress to do so.
Justice Souter wrote for the dissent. He pointed out that the meaning of jurisdiction has been loosely used by the Court. He argued that the majority's use of the word was archaic and missing the 14-day deadline did not necessarily deprive the court of the authority to hear the appeal. More importantly, the Justice declared that a defendant should be able to trust the judge in his case.