Title: McWilliams v. Gladden

State: oregon

Issuer: Oregon Supreme Court

Document:

Affirmed November 17, 1965.
Petition for rehearing denied January 11, 1966.
*334 Lawrence A. Aschenbrenner, Public Defender, Salem, argued the cause and filed a brief for appellant.
Peter S. Herman, Assistant Attorney General, Salem, argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief was Robert Y. Thornton, Attorney General, Salem.
Before McALLISTER, Chief Justice, and PERRY, SLOAN, O'CONNELL,[*] GOODWIN, DENECKE and HOLMAN, Justices.
AFFIRMED.
PERRY, J.
On June 25, 1958, Evan McWilliams entered a plea of guilty to murder in the second degree and was sentenced to life imprisonment in the Oregon State Penitentiary. On June 12, 1964, he commenced in the circuit court of Marion county proceedings under ORS 138.510-138.680, alleging that his imprisonment was illegal in that:
The defendant denied the allegations of the petition and a trial of the issues was had.
The circuit court of Marion County found that under the facts the constitutional rights of the petitioner had not been invaded. From the judgment of the trial court denying the petitioner relief, petitioner has appealed.
The record discloses that petitioner was arrested on the 21st day of June, 1958; that on June 23rd he was arraigned in the district court of Klamath county and bound over to await the grand jury of that county. On June 25th he appeared in person and without counsel in the circuit court of Klamath county where it was stated to the court that he desired to waive indictment by the grand jury. At this time the trial court records disclose the following proceedings were had:
The petitioner does not claim that the record of the above proceedings is not accurate, but contends he did not "voluntarily" and "understandingly" waive counsel and enter a plea of guilty.
As a factual basis for his contention, petitioner testified that he is a caucasian and was 47 years of age at the time of his conviction; that he had an eighth grade education; that he had never been arrested before *341 for a crime; that he had served in World War II and been honorably discharged as a staff sergeant; that he had been steadily employed as a logger for a number of years; that in 1941 he married an Indian girl, Patricia Schockin, but they were separated prior to his arrest because "she got to running around too much * * * with different ones. The last one was Charlie Robinson," (who was killed by the petitioner).
The petitioner also testified as to his version of what occurred at the time he killed Robinson, stating that he had been drinking at the time and only his wife was present. He further stated that after he had notified a deputy sheriff he had killed Robinson he was taken to the county jail. This was on a Saturday and on Monday morning the petitioner states that he was taken to the office of the district attorney, Mr. Beddoe, where the district attorney told him that he had a good first degree murder charge against him, but that if he wanted to plead guilty to second degree murder he would reduce the charge. Petitioner also testified he was told by the district attorney the following:
Petitioner further testified that he did not see an attorney while he was in jail, and that before he was *342 taken before the circuit judge on the 25th the district attorney came to his cell and said:
Petitioner also stated he did not know at the time he waived counsel and entered his plea of guilty what elements constituted voluntary manslaughter, involuntary manslaughter, justifiable or excusable homicide.
The evidence of the state contradicts the testimony of the petitioner. The district attorney testified that the petitioner requested the sheriff to take him to the district attorney's office for the purpose of asking to be permitted to enter a plea of guilty to the lesser degree of homicide, and that it was at this meeting, while the district attorney was considering the offer, that he told the petitioner he thought he had a good first degree murder charge against him. He also advised petitioner of the elements constituting first and second degree murder. The district attorney stated that he did not agree to the reduced charge at this time, but later, after petitioner had been returned to the jail, did advise him that he would accept his proposition. The district attorney also denied telling petitioner what to do at the proceedings before the circuit *343 court other than when asked by the petitioner he told him what the procedure would be.
The district attorney further testified that the petitioner asked him about a parole and he told him that he had to be confined for a period of seven years before he would be eligible unless they had changed the rule. He could not remember whether this conversation took place before or after the petitioner was sentenced, but he was positive that the matter was not discussed prior to the petitioner's request to have the charge reduced.
The petitioner in his brief states:
As a basis for this assertion the petitioner points out that he was not advised of the following:
It is apparent from the petitioner's statement and the listing of these points that he is under the impression that the standard by which a defendant's waiver must be judged is to be the ability of the prosecution to prove its case.
The test proposed by the petitioner is not one which gives an individual an opportunity to weigh the acts which he knows he either committed or did not commit against his own consciousness of guilt or innocence, but to weigh his chances of avoiding the legal consequences of his acts. We are unable to accept such a test.
1. The purpose behind constitutional requirements of due process are not to protect the guilty from the consequences of their crime, but to prevent a conviction by use of methods which are inconsistent with the American theory of fair play.
2, 3. We have researched numerous authorities and have reached the conclusion that in considering the question of waiver by a defendant in a criminal case the legal principles which must guide the trial court are as follows: (1) The individual waiving his rights must have the mental capacity to understand fully the nature of the right he is waiving, and (2) his choice must be free of oppressive tactics to induce that choice.
Whether or not these legal requirements are met must depend upon the facts of each individual case.
4. While the trial court in this proceeding did not make a specific finding of fact that this petitioner had the mental capacity at the time he waived counsel and entered his plea of guilty to understand the nature *345 of his act, the record before us fully supports the trial court's general findings in this regard.
The record discloses that the petitioner was of mature age and there is no contention that he suffered mental retardation. It is true he had not received a formal education beyond the eighth grade, but his rise from a private to a sergeant in the army, and his years as a logger clearly indicate that his worldly education did not stop with the eighth grade. The petitioner does not and could not, in view of the record, contend he did not know he had a right to legal representation.
A more difficult problem arises when these principles of an undertanding waiver are applied to the waiver of trial on the merits by the entry of a plea of guilty. Certainly this petitioner knew, and the record discloses he knew, that if he entered a plea of guilty there would be no trial and all that remained was the assessment of the penalty.
The petitioner testified that at the time he entered his plea of guilty he did not "understand the elements" of second degree murder. No attempt was made by the petitioner to state what, if any, "elements" of this crime he knew about or did not know about, and his knowledge or lack of knowledge of these "elements" is left unanswered in the record.
It must be conceded, if petitioner did not understand the elements of the crime of second degree murder, he could not understandingly measure against his inner conscience his acts and his mental attitude to determine his guilt or innocence of crime.
Second degree murder, insofar as is applicable, is defined in ORS 163.020 as follows:
We cannot believe that this petitioner as a reasonably intelligent person would not understand the general meaning of the word "purposely" to mean "intentionally" or the word "maliciously" to mean with an "evil intent." This especially in view of the fact that the district attorney testified he had explained the elements of murder in the first degree and murder in the second degree to the petitioner.
Since there is ample evidence to sustain the trial court's ruling of an understanding waiver, there remains only the question of it being voluntary.
This again raises a question of fact. The petitioner wishes to convey by his testimony the thought that he was induced to waive his rights and enter his plea of guilty because of fear created by the district attorney in informing him that he thought he had a good first degree murder case against him; and also the inducement that if he would plead guilty he could be paroled at the end of two years.
5. While the petitioner's testimony might support such an inference, in our opinion, the record as a whole is such that a trier of fact would reasonably reach an opposite conclusion.
The trial court in this proceeding went fully into the merits of the factual claims advanced by the petitioner and its findings are fairly supported by the record as a whole.
The judgment is affirmed.
SLOAN, J., concurring.
Plaintiff's petition alleges facts which, if true, would establish that he was convicted upon a plea *347 of guilty without advice of counsel in violation of the Sixth Amendment. It seems to me that the essential issue in the case is to decide if the Post Conviction Hearing Act, ORS 138.510 et seq., has afforded the petitioner an adequate forum in which to test his claims. Case v. Nebraska, 1965, 381 US 336, 85 S Ct 1486, 14 L Ed2d 422; Townsend v. Sain, 1963, 372 US 293, 83 S Ct 745, 9 L Ed2d 770; Fay v. Noia, 1963, 372 US 391, 83 S Ct 822, 9 L Ed2d 837, and other cases cited in these decisions require that:
Although the above is taken from a concurring opinion it fairly summarizes the prior decisions. The Oregon Act satisfies each of those requirements.
In the instant post conviction proceeding petitioner was afforded a full dress hearing, assisted by counsel, with an opportunity to present all of the evidence he desired and a brief in support of his contentions. The *348 trial court, after considering the case, made specific findings and conclusions. No deficiency in applying the Supreme Court prescribed standards can be found.
It should then be our function to decide if the evidence reasonably supports the trial court's findings. In this instance it does. Particularly, when the prime problem considered by the trial court was to test the truth of the testimony. We should view the findings as the verdict of a jury and if supported, the findings should be affirmed. It is not our function to review the evidence unless it appears that the trial court has misapplied the law in respect to his consideration of the evidence. ORS 138.650. I would affirm the trial court on this basis.
GOODWIN, J., joins in this opinion.
DENECKE, J., dissenting.
The majority and concurring opinions hold that there was evidence to sustain the trial court's finding that the petitioner waived his right to counsel. Both opinions necessarily assume that the defendant in a noncapital case had a right to counsel in 1958. This is a post-conviction case; therefore, only a constitutional right to counsel is in issue. I, therefore, construe the opinions as extending Hamilton v. Alabama, 368 US 52, 82 S Ct 157, 7 L ed2d 114 (1961), and White v. Maryland, 373 US 59, 83 S Ct 1050, 10 L ed2d 193 (1963), to noncapital cases and holding that such an extension is retroactive, at least in a case in which a life sentence is mandatory. The other possible construction of the opinions is that in 1958 the Oregon Constitution guaranteed the right to counsel at arraignment in a case in which life imprisonment was mandatory. Cf. State v. Delaney, 221 Or 620, 332 *349 P2d 71, 351 P2d 85 (1960). I would concur in the first alternative.
I dissent from the decision, however, in the belief that there was no evidence from which the post-conviction trial court could find the petitioner waived his right to counsel.
As I read the record, the basic facts from which a waiver must be found are these: the petitioner was clearly told that he had a right to a lawyer and he stated voluntarily that he did not want a lawyer; the district attorney explained the elements of first- and second-degree murder to petitioner; the trial court may have told petitioner before he entered his plea that the mandatory punishment was life. (I will assume this was done.) In my opinion this is not enough to support a finding that the petitioner waived his right to counsel.
In Von Moltke v. Gillies, 332 US 708, 68 S Ct 316, 92 L ed 309 (1948), the defendant had some advice from nongovernment lawyers on two occasions. She pleaded not guilty on two occasions. She received some legal advice from the FBI and then asked to plead guilty. Her plea was received although she had no lawyer at that time. She signed a written waiver of counsel. The defendant was a German countess and her husband was a university instructor.
The United States Supreme Court reversed her conviction upon the ground "that the undisputed testimony previously summarized shows that when petitioner pleaded guilty, she did not have that full understanding and comprehension of her legal rights indispensable to a valid waiver of the assistance of counsel." (332 US at 720) The Court stated:
In Moore v. Michigan, 355 US 155, 160-161, 78 S Ct 191, 2 L ed2d 167 (1957), the Court invalidated a conviction under a plea of guilty. It said:
In People v. Chesser, 29 Cal2d 815, 178 P2d 761 (1947), the defendant repeatedly confessed the killing of a baby. Upon arraignment the court told the defendant of his right to have court-appointed counsel and the defendant said he did not want a lawyer or a trial and that he was ready to plead. The court told him there was a possibility of the death sentence and asked his plea, and the defendant pleaded guilty. A hearing was held upon the degree of the offense. The defendant was asked if he wanted to testify or ask witnesses questions and he refused, stating that he would like to be sent to the gas chamber. The court ordered two doctors to examine the defendant and to give their opinions as to his sanity. The defendant told the doctors that he had been drinking and could not remember the killing. The doctors reported defendant sane. The trial court found the defendant sane, that he killed the child with premeditation, and imposed the death sentence. The California Supreme Court reversed, holding that the defendant had not effectively waived his right to counsel. The court said:
*352 As I understand the above cases, there was no evidence from which the post-conviction court could find this petitioner knowingly waived his right to counsel, or, stated differently, no evidence to support a finding that the petitioner understandingly entered a plea of guilty.
[*]  O'Connell, J., did not participate in this decision.