Burns v. Ohio
1959 U.S. LEXIS 810, 360 U.S. 252, 3 L. Ed. 2d 1209 (1959)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, once a state establishes a system of appellate review in criminal cases, it cannot foreclose an indigent defendant from access to any phase of that procedure, including discretionary appeals, solely because of their inability to pay a required filing fee.
Facts:
- In 1953, a petitioner was convicted of burglary in Ohio and sentenced to life imprisonment.
- An Ohio Court of Appeals affirmed his conviction that same year.
- In 1957, the petitioner, an indigent, sought to file a motion for leave to appeal his conviction in the Supreme Court of Ohio.
- He attached an affidavit of poverty to his legal papers, declaring he was without sufficient funds to pay the required $20 docket fee.
- The Clerk of the Supreme Court of Ohio refused to file the petitioner's motion and returned the papers to him.
- The clerk's refusal was based on a court rule requiring the payment of fees in advance, which was applied without exception for paupers.
Procedural Posture:
- The petitioner was convicted in an Ohio trial court.
- The petitioner appealed to the Ohio Court of Appeals, which affirmed the conviction.
- The petitioner attempted to file a motion for leave to appeal with the Supreme Court of Ohio.
- The Clerk of the Supreme Court of Ohio refused to accept the filing due to the petitioner's inability to pay the required fee.
- The petitioner sought a writ of certiorari from the United States Supreme Court.
- The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to decide the constitutional question.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a state's requirement that an indigent criminal defendant pay a filing fee to submit a motion for leave to appeal to its highest court violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?
Opinions:
Majority - Chief Justice Warren
Yes. Once a state provides for appellate review, it may not deny an indigent defendant access to any part of that process due to poverty. The Court, extending the principle from Griffin v. Illinois, held that it is a 'distinction without a difference' that the petitioner had already received one appeal or that the appeal to the state supreme court was discretionary rather than a matter of right. A non-indigent defendant has the opportunity to have their motion for leave to appeal considered on its merits, and the state cannot deny that same opportunity to an indigent defendant. There is no rational basis to assume that an indigent's motion is less meritorious, and imposing financial barriers to appellate review has no place in a system of equal justice.
Dissenting - Justice Frankfurter
The U.S. Supreme Court does not have jurisdiction to hear this case. The dissent argued that the Court's appellate power is limited to reviewing a 'final judgment' from a state's highest court, and a letter from a clerk does not constitute such a judgment. The clerk's action was not a ruling by the actual judges of the Supreme Court of Ohio, and the parties' agreement to treat it as such cannot create jurisdiction. The petitioner had several other available remedies to obtain a proper judgment from the Ohio court, such as applying directly to the judges or seeking a writ of habeas corpus, and should have exhausted those before coming to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Analysis:
This decision significantly expands the protections for indigent criminal defendants established in Griffin v. Illinois. It clarifies that the right of equal access applies not only to appeals-as-of-right but also to discretionary stages of the appellate process. By striking down the filing fee requirement, the Court prevents states from creating a two-tiered system of appellate justice based on wealth. The ruling ensures that the ability to have a higher court even consider an appeal is not contingent on a defendant's financial status, thereby reinforcing the principle of 'Equal Justice Under Law' for all.
