From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

United States v. Lewis

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit
May 29, 1973
478 F.2d 835 (5th Cir. 1973)

Summary

holding one seeking recovery of fine need not rely on the Tucker Act

Summary of this case from U.S. v. Holmes

Opinion

Nos. 72-2524 and 72-2740.

May 29, 1973.

Gerald J. Gallinghouse, U.S. Atty., Mary Williams Cazalas, John R. Schupp, Asst. U.S. Attys., New Orleans, La., for plaintiff-appellant.

Virgil Wheeler, Jr., New Orleans, La., for defendants-appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana.

Before JONES, GODBOLD and INGRAHAM, Circuit Judges.


The narrow question on this appeal is whether the amounts paid as fines which were imposed after pleas of guilty to criminal charges made pursuant to a statute which was subsequently determined, retroactively, to be unconstitutional, may be recovered in a coram nobis proceeding attacking the validity of the convictions. The facts of the case, the decision of the district court and the reasons for its decision are set forth in its opinion. United States v. Lewis, E.D.La. (1972), 342 F. Supp. 833.

This cause would require less in the way of adjudication if the party holding funds exacted under an unconstitutional statute was not an entity which could and does assert sovereignty as justification for its refusal to restore such funds to them from whom they were received.

We are in accord with the district court's decision and with the basis for its decision. It is appropriate, however, that there be some further discussion of the matters which the Government has stressed on appeal.

The Government concedes, although it has little choice to do otherwise, that the judgments of the district court must be affirmed insofar as they set aside the convictions of Lewis and Willoz. The Government asserts that, although the statute under which the fines were imposed were in violation of the Constitution, nevertheless if there is to be any recovery, which the Government does not concede, it must be by a separate action brought under the Tucker Act. 28 U.S.C.A. § 1346(a). This statute is one which confers a jurisdiction upon the district courts. It is not procedural. We can see no reason why a person who has paid a fine pursuant to an unconstitutional statute should be required to resort to a multiplicity of actions in order to obtain reimbursement of money to which he is entitled. Since the district court was empowered to set aside the conviction, it could also correct the unlawful result of the conviction and require the repayment of the money collected as fines. This it could do without requiring the bringing of another action. The Ninth Circuit, in a proceeding brought under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255, has required the repayment of a fine illegally collected. Smith v. United States, 9th Cir. (1961), 287 F.2d 270, cert. denied, 366 U.S. 946, 81 S.Ct. 1676, 6 L.Ed. 2d 856.

The Government says that the appellants cannot recover in any event or by any existing remedial procedure because there is no express statutory authority for such relief. Just as the imposition of a fine is an incident of a criminal conviction, so is the direction for repayment an incident to the vacating and setting aside of the conviction.

The judgments of the district court are, in all things,

Affirmed.


Summaries of

United States v. Lewis

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit
May 29, 1973
478 F.2d 835 (5th Cir. 1973)

holding one seeking recovery of fine need not rely on the Tucker Act

Summary of this case from U.S. v. Holmes

vacating a federal tax conviction based on a subsequent Supreme Court decision

Summary of this case from U.S. v. Sawyer

vacating plea-conviction due to subsequent Supreme Court decision

Summary of this case from U.S. v. Sawyer

In Lewis, we allowed two persons, who had brought a coram nobis proceeding to exonerate themselves from convictions rendered invalid by subsequent cases, to raise Tucker Act claims in the same action for recovery of fines they had paid under their invalid sentences of conviction.

Summary of this case from U.S. v. One

stating that fines collected under a statute that is subsequently determined to be unconstitutional must be repaid when suit is brought to recover them

Summary of this case from Allen v. Santa Clara Cnty. Corr. Peace Officers Ass'n

stating that fines collected under a statute that is subsequently determined to be unconstitutional must be repaid when suit is brought to recover them

Summary of this case from Hernandez v. AFSCME Cal.

In United States v. Lewis, 478 F.2d 835 (5th Cir. 1973), the Fifth Circuit addressed the question of whether fines imposed pursuant to a statute which was subsequently determined to be unconstitutional may be recovered in a proceeding attacking the validity of the convictions.

Summary of this case from U.S. v. TUSA

In United States v. Lewis (5th Cir. 1973), 478 F.2d 835, Pasha v. United States (7th Cir. 1973), 484 F.2d 630, and DeCecco v. United States (1st Cir. 1973), 485 F.2d 372, individuals who had been convicted under the statute declared unconstitutional in Marchetti and Grosso, filed motions in the nature of applications for writs of error coram nobis to set aside their convictions and recover fine monies paid, and in Pasha, the value of an automobile seized, under those convictions.

Summary of this case from People v. Meyerowitz

discerning no reason why a person who has paid a fine pursuant to an unconstitutional statute should be required to resort to a multiplicity of actions in order to obtain reimbursement of money to which he is entitled, and noting that the district court was empowered to require the repayment of the fines

Summary of this case from People v. Nelson
Case details for

United States v. Lewis

Case Details

Full title:UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, v. JACK L. LEWIS…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit

Date published: May 29, 1973

Citations

478 F.2d 835 (5th Cir. 1973)

Citing Cases

State v. Parker

This court has never considered whether fees paid by a defendant for court-ordered participation in a…

U.S. v. Sawyer

The modern application of coram nobis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1651 allows for relief in light of legal…