107 Opinion of the Court. tempt as the ultimate sanction to secure compliance with Board orders. The granting or withholding of such remedial action is not wholly discretionary with the court. This is true not only under the National Labor Relations Act but also under general principles of equity jurisprudence. It seems clear to us that in the light of these principles and the facts of this case, the court below exceeded the allowable limits of its discretion in denying relief to the Board and that its judgment must be reversed and remanded for proceedings in conformity with this opinion. Reversed and remanded. + Labor Board v. Mexia Textile Mills, 339 U. S. 563. 5 McComb v. Jacksonville Paper Co., 336 U. S. 187. 6 International Salt Co. v. United States, 332 U. S. 392; Union Tool Co. v. Wilson, 259 U. S. 107; Penfield Co. v. Securities and Counsel for Parties. 350 U.S. ARIZONA v. CALIFORNIA ET AL. ON EXCEPTIONS TO THE REPORT OF THE SPECIAL MASTER. No. 10, Original. Argued December 8, 1955. Decided Ruling on motion of California to join other States as parties to this action. P. 115. George I. Haight served as Special Master by appointment of the Court, 347 U. S. 986, and filed the report on which this ruling was made. After his death, Simon H. Rifkind was appointed Special Master, 350 U. S. 812. John P. Frank and Ernest W. McFarland argued the cause for the State of Arizona, complainant. On the brief were Robert Morrison, Attorney General, John H. Moeur, Mr. Frank, John Geoffrey Will, Burr Sutter, Perry Ling and Theodore Kiendl. Northcutt Ely, Assistant Attorney General of California, argued the cause for defendants. On the brief were Edmund G. Brown, Attorney General, Mr. Ely, Robert L. McCarty, Prentiss Moore and Gilbert F. Nelson, Assistant Attorneys General, and Charles E. Corker, Howard I. Friedman, Burton J. Gindler, James B. McKenney, John R. Alexander and George Brody, Deputy Attorneys General, for the State of California, Francis E. Jenney for the Palo Verde Irrigation District, Harry W. Horton and R. L. Knox, Jr. for the Imperial Irrigation District, Earl Redwine for the Coachella Valley County Water District, James H. Howard, Charles C. Cooper, Jr., Donald M. Keith, Alan Patten and Frank P. Doherty for the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, Roger Arnebergh for the City of Los Angeles, and T. B. Cosgrove for the City of San Diego, defendants. 114 Opinion of the Court. W. T. Mathews, Special Assistant Attorney General, argued the cause for the State of Nevada, Intervener. With him on the brief were Harvey Dickerson, Attorney General, and Wm. J. Kane, Special Assistant Attorney General. Hatfield Chilson, Special Assistant Attorney General of Colorado, argued the cause for the States of Colorado, New Mexico, Utah and Wyoming. On the brief were Duke W. Dunbar, Attorney General, and Mr. Chilson for the State of Colorado, Richard Robinson, Attorney General, and Fred E. Wilson for the State of New Mexico, E. R. Callister, Attorney General, and Dennis McCarthy, Special Assistant Attorney General, for the State of Utah, and George F. Guy, Attorney General, for the State of Wyoming. PER CURIAM. The motion of California to join the States of Colorado and Wyoming as parties to this cause is denied. The motion to join Utah and New Mexico as parties is granted only to the extent of their interest in Lower Basin waters. MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER, MR. JUSTICE BURTON, and MR. JUSTICE HARLAN would grant the motion. THE CHIEF JUSTICE did not participate in this proceeding. PENNSYLVANIA EX REL. HERMAN v. CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA, WESTERN DIVISION. No. 45. Argued November 14, 1955-Decided January 9, 1956. In a state court, petitioner pleaded guilty to numerous charges of burglary, larceny, forgery and false pretense, and he was sentenced to imprisonment for terms aggregating from 172 to 35 years. Eight years later, he petitioned the same court for habeas corpus, claiming that his conviction was invalid under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, because (1) his pleas of guilty resulted from coercion and threats by state officers, and (2) he was never advised of his right to counsel or given the benefit of counsel. The District Attorney filed an answer challenging the materiality of some of petitioner's allegations, denying others and urging that the writ be refused because of petitioner's tardiness in challenging the judgment. The petition was dismissed summarily without a hearing. Held: Petitioner was entitled to a hearing, and the judgment is reversed. Pp. 117-123. (a) Petitioner's allegations as to his treatment prior to confession and his understanding of the nature and consequences of a guilty plea present the very kind of dispute that should be decided onlyafter a hearing. Pp. 119-121. (b) Neither petitioner's statement at his trial that he was guilty and threw himself upon the mercy of the court nor any other statements made by him at that time were in themselves sufficient to refute as frivolous or false the allegations in his petition for habeas corpus concerning matters not shown by the record. P. 121. (c) The number and complexity of the charges against petitioner, as well as their seriousness, create a strong conviction that no layman could have understood the accusations and that petitioner should have been advised of his right to be represented by counsel. P. 122. (d) The mere fact that petitioner had, without benefit of counsel, pleaded guilty to an offense two years before did not show that he had the capacity to defend himself against the numerous charges here. Gibbs v. Burke, 337 U. S. 773; Uveges v. Pennsylvania, 335 U. S. 437. Pp. 122-123. 116 Opinion of the Court. (e) Petitioner was not barred from presenting his challenge to the conviction, although eight years had passed before his petition for habeas corpus was filed. Uveges v. Pennsylvania, supra; Palmer v. Ashe, 342 U. S. 134. P. 123. (f) Petitioner's allegations were sufficient to entitle him to relief, if proven. Pp. 119-120, 123. (g) Petitioner cannot be denied a hearing merely because the allegations of his petition were contradicted by the prosecuting officers, and he is entitled to relief if he can prove his charges. P. 123. Reversed and remanded. Herbert Monte Levy and Marjorie Hanson Matson argued the cause and filed a brief for petitioner. Wray G. Zelt, Jr. argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief were Harold V. Fergus and John F. Roney. MR. JUSTICE BLACK delivered the opinion of the Court. In 1945 petitioner Stephen Herman pleaded guilty in a Pennsylvania state court to 8 charges of burglary, 12 of larceny, 8 of forgery, and 2 of false pretense.1 He was sentenced to serve 171⁄2 to 35 years in the penitentiary, 212 to 5 years on each of the charges, some running consecutively, some concurrently. Eight years later, in 1953, he filed this petition for habeas corpus in the same Pennsylvania court, asking that his conviction be held invalid as in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. He alleged: (1) that his pleas of guilty were the result of coercion and threats by state officers and (2) that at no stage of the proceedings was he either advised of his right to or given the benefit of counsel. The District Attorney filed an answer challenging the materiality of some of petitioner's allegations, 1 The courts below so computed the charges. Petitioner counts only 27 charges. The record casts doubt on the accuracy of both computations. |