United States v. Robinson
The Supreme Court ruled that a trial judge cannot excuse a late notice of appeal in a criminal case, even when the delay was an honest misunderstanding between a defendant and his lawyer. Because the men here filed their appeal papers 11 days after the 10-day deadline, the appeals court never had authority to hear their case.
The decision makes clear that criminal appeal deadlines are strict and cannot be stretched by judges no matter how sympathetic the excuse, leaving any change in that rule up to the rule-making process rather than individual judges.
“We think that to recognize a late notice of appeal is actually to “enlarge” the period for taking an appeal.”
The Court's core reasoning for why late-filed appeals cannot be excused under the rule.
How it got here: The Court of Appeals allowed the late appeal after a remand showed the trial judge found excusable neglect; the government asked the Supreme Court to review that ruling.
The Case in Depth
What happened
Two men were charged with murder in Washington, D.C. and convicted by a jury of the lesser crime of manslaughter. Twenty-one days after judgment, they filed notices of appeal — 11 days past the 10-day deadline in the court rules — because of confusion over whether they or their lawyer was supposed to file the paperwork. The government asked the appeals court to throw out the appeals as untimely.
The question before the Court
If two men convicted of manslaughter filed their notice of appeal 11 days late because of a mix-up with their lawyer, could a judge excuse the delay and let the appeal go forward anyway?
Why it matters
Anyone convicted of a crime in federal court now knows that missing the 10-day appeal deadline, even by a few days and even for an understandable reason, can permanently end their chance to appeal. Judges cannot use fairness or good excuses to revive a late appeal, so defendants and their lawyers must treat the deadline as absolute.
What changes now
The Supreme Court's reversal means the appeals court's decision allowing the late appeal cannot stand, so the men's appeal is treated as never having been properly filed, ending that avenue of relief. The ruling is final and binding on how federal courts nationwide must treat late-filed criminal appeal notices. Any change allowing more flexibility would have to come through a formal update to the federal rules, not a future court ruling.
What this does not decide
The Court did not decide whether it would be good policy to give judges some power to excuse late appeal notices — it said that question belongs to the rule-making process, not to judges interpreting the current rule.
Concurrences and dissents
How the Justices voted
Majority (1). Justice Whittaker (author).
Dissent (2). Justice Black (author), joined by Justice Douglas.
Dissent — Justice Black
“an extension of time, granted after the 10-day period for an appeal has passed; is not an “enlargement” of the time in the narrow sense in which Rule 45 (b) uses the word”The dissent's view that a late-filed appeal is not really an 'enlargement' of the deadline.
Justices Black and Douglas dissented, agreeing with a dissenting appeals-court judge that letting a judge excuse a late notice of appeal filed after the deadline already passed is not really an 'enlargement' of the deadline in the narrow sense the rule uses that word, and so should have been allowed. Read the full dissent →
How the Court got there
The legal reasoning, step by step
- The Court read the rule governing time extensions, which says a judge may extend most deadlines but specifically states the court 'may not enlarge... the period for taking an appeal.' The Court held that letting a late notice count as timely is exactly the kind of 'enlargement' the rule forbids, no matter how the appeals court tried to relabel it.
- The Court noted that every prior court decision it could find treated the criminal appeal deadline as mandatory and jurisdictional — meaning a court simply has no power to hear a late appeal — and that the appeals court below had cited no case supporting a different result.
- The Court pointed to its own precedent limiting a trial judge's power to grant a new trial only within the time the rules specify, reasoning that if late notices of appeal could be excused, trial judges could just as easily let new-trial motions, motions to arrest judgment, or sentence reductions be filed months or years late — a result the rules and prior cases plainly reject.
- The Court traced the drafting history of the appeal-deadline rule and found that an early draft had included a limited power to extend appeal deadlines, but that provision was deliberately deleted before the rule was adopted, showing the drafters intentionally chose not to allow extensions.
- The Court concluded that whether judges should ever be allowed some flexibility on appeal deadlines is a policy question for the rule-making process to decide, not something a court can create on its own by reinterpreting existing rule language.
Doctrinal impact
Cases affected by this decision
Reaffirms United States v. Smith (331 U. S. 469)
Relied on to confirm that judges' power to act on new-trial motions is strictly limited to the time the rules specify.