POLLARD V. UNITED STATES, 352 U. S. 354 (1957)

Subscribe to Cases that cite 352 U. S. 354

U.S. Supreme Court

Pollard v. United States, 352 U.S. 354 (1957)

Pollard v. United States

No. 38

Argued December 3, 1956

Decided February 25, 1957

352 U.S. 354


After petitioner had pleaded guilty to a federal offense and had left the courtroom, the District Court entered judgment suspending sentence and placed petitioner on probation for three years. Nearly two years later, in 1954, upon petitioner's arrest for violation of probation, the District Court entered a formal judgment and commitment sentencing petitioner to 2 years' imprisonment and setting aside the earlier judgment and order. Petitioner's motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to vacate this sentence was denied by the District Court; the Court of Appeals denied leave to appeal, and this Court granted certiorari.


1. Although petitioner was released from federal prison after this Court granted his petition for certiorari, the possibility of consequences collateral to the imposition of sentence is sufficiently substantial to justify decision of this case on the merits. P. 352 U. S. 358.

2. The Court deems it proper to consider questions as to the legality of the 1954 sentence, raised by petitioner in his brief, although, had petitioner been represented by counsel in the courts below and upon his petition for certiorari, those questions might well have been deemed neither preserved below nor raised in the petition. P. 352 U. S. 359.

3. The 1954 sentence did not violate the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment. Pp. 352 U. S. 359-361.

4. The 1954 sentence did not violate petitioner's right under the Sixth Amendment to a speedy trial, nor the provision of Rule 32(a) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure requiring imposition of sentence "without unreasonable delay." Pp. 352 U. S. 361-362.

5. Petitioner's other contentions, that in sentencing him in 1954, the trial judge disregarded the standards prescribed for such a proceeding, are not properly before the Court and are unsupported by the record. Pp. 352 U. S. 362-363.

6. Since the decision of this case on the merits is against the petitioner, the question whether the Court of Appeals properly denied leave to appeal need not be determined. P. 352 U. S. 363.


Page 352 U. S. 355

ChanRobles Legal Resources:

ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review :

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line :