From our private database of 33,600+ case briefs...
Lane v. Williams
United States Supreme Court
455 U.S. 624, 102 S. Ct. 1322, 71 L. Ed. 2d 508 (1982)
Facts
In 1975, Williams (defendant) and Southall (defendant) pleaded guilty in Illinois state courts to burglary charges in unrelated cases. Both men were released on parole. Both men were returned to prison after courts determined that they violated parole by getting rearrested. During Williams’s and Southall’s parole-violation incarceration terms, each man filed a writ of habeas corpus in federal court, asserting that his sentence was illegal because he was not informed that Illinois sentencing law imposes a mandatory three-year parole term for burglary convictions. Williams sought an order freeing him from the warden’s present control and any future liability under his original burglary sentence. Southall sought immediate release from custody. The federal district court consolidated Williams’s and Southall’s petitions and granted both writs. In granting relief, the district court enforced specific performance of the plea bargains rather than reversing the guilty pleas and remanding the cases for new trials. The appellate court reversed the district court. The appellate court noted that although Williams’s sentence expired before the appellate court reached Williams’s appeal, Williams’s appeal was not moot. Southall’s parole term expired after the appellate court’s decision. The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Stevens, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 602,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 33,600 briefs, keyed to 984 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
