## Facts

- In 1960, James P. Carafas was convicted in New York state court of burglary and grand larceny and sentenced to concurrent terms of three to five years.
- After *Mapp v. Ohio*, Carafas argued on direct appeal that illegally seized evidence was used at trial; the state appellate courts affirmed, and the U.S. Supreme Court denied certiorari.
- Carafas sought habeas corpus relief in state and then federal court, again alleging use of illegally obtained evidence.
- In June 1963, he filed a federal habeas petition while he was in custody.
- After an evidentiary hearing, the federal district court dismissed the petition, concluding he failed to show a Fourth Amendment violation, but issued a certificate of probable cause.
- The Second Circuit denied leave to appeal in forma pauperis and simultaneously dismissed the appeal as without merit.
- While Supreme Court review was pending, Carafas’s sentence expired and he was discharged from parole status.
- The State argued the case was moot due to his release and defended the court of appeals’ summary dismissal.

## Issues

1. Whether a federal habeas case becomes moot when the petitioner is released after filing but before final adjudication.
2. Whether the federal habeas “in custody” requirement is satisfied if the petitioner was in custody when the petition was filed, despite subsequent release.
3. Whether a court of appeals may summarily dismiss a habeas appeal as meritless after the district court issues a certificate of probable cause.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court held the case was not moot because a criminal conviction can impose continuing legal disabilities that survive completion of the sentence.
- The Court held the “in custody” requirement is met if the petitioner was in custody at the time of filing; later release does not defeat jurisdiction already attached in the district court.
- The Court held that after a certificate of probable cause issues, the court of appeals must allow the appeal to proceed and may not dispose of it by denying in forma pauperis status and dismissing as meritless.
- The Court reversed the Second Circuit and remanded for further proceedings.

## Legal Principles

- A habeas petitioner’s release after filing does not moot the petition where collateral consequences of the conviction create a continuing stake in the outcome.
- Federal habeas jurisdiction depends on custody at the time of filing; once jurisdiction attaches, it is not defeated by the petitioner’s subsequent release before completion of proceedings.
- Under 28 U.S.C. § 2243, habeas relief is not limited to immediate physical release; courts may dispose of the matter as “law and justice require.”
- When a district court issues a certificate of probable cause, the court of appeals must treat the case as a proper appeal and provide appellate consideration consistent with *Nowakowski v. Maroney*.

## Conclusion

The Court ruled that a habeas challenge to a conviction remains justiciable after the petitioner’s sentence expires due to collateral consequences, that custody is assessed at filing for jurisdiction, and that a certificate of probable cause obligates meaningful appellate review rather than summary dismissal.


Carafas v. LaVallee, 391 U.S. 234 (1968)