Source: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/339/660/
Timestamp: 2019-04-20 22:15:47+00:00

Document:
Upon his plea of guilty of murder, petitioner was sentenced by a Michigan state court to imprisonment for life. The State had long before abolished capital punishment. Almost ten years later, petitioner moved to vacate the sentence and for a new trial, claiming that a federal constitutional right to assistance of counsel had been infringed and that his plea of guilty had been induced by misrepresentations by the prosecuting attorney and the sheriff. The motion was heard before the same judge who had received his plea of guilty and sentenced him. The motion was denied, and the State Supreme Court affirmed.
Held: upon the record in this case, petitioner has failed to sustain the burden of proving such a disregard of fundamental fairness in the imposition of punishment by the State as would justify this Court in setting aside the sentence as violative of the Due Process Clause. Pp. 339 U. S. 661-665.
(a) In the circumstances of this case, the failure of the record to show that petitioner was offered counsel does not offend the Due Process Clause. Pp. 339 U. S. 665-666.
(b) When a crime subject to capital punishment is not involved, each case depends on its own facts. P. 339 U. S. 666.
(c) To invalidate a plea of guilty, a state prisoner must establish that an ingredient of unfairness actively operated in the process that resulted in his confinement. P. 339 U. S. 666.
322 Mich. 351, 33 N.W.2d 904, affirmed.
Petitioner's motion to vacate a sentence of life imprisonment theretofore imposed upon him, and for a new trial, was denied by a Michigan state court. The State Supreme Court affirmed. 322 Mich. 351, 33 N.W.2d 904. This Court granted certiorari. 336 U.S. 916. Affirmed, p. 339 U. S. 666.
Petitioner is in custody of the Michigan under a sentence of life imprisonment for first-degree murder, confirmed upon collateral attack by a judgment of the Supreme Court of Michigan, here challenged. He claims that he was deprived of his right to counsel to the extent that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment secures that right. The generalizations that are relevant to such a claim no longer call for elaboration. They have been set forth in a series of recent opinions. [Footnote 1] It is now settled that, as to its administration of criminal justice, a State's duty to provide counsel, so far as the United States Constitution imposes it, is but one aspect of the comprehending guaranty of the Due Process Clause of a fair hearing on an accusation, including adequate opportunity to meet it. And so we turn to the facts of this case.
"The record may show that this respondent [petitioner] has just offered to plead guilty and has pleaded guilty to a charge of murder; that, after a full statement by the respondent in response to numerous questions by the Court in open Court, and after a private interview with respondent at chambers, in both of which he has freely and frankly discussed the details of this homicide as claimed by him, the Court being clearly satisfied that the plea of guilty is made freely, understandingly, and voluntarily, an order has been entered accepting such plea of guilty. [Footnote 2]"
and divorced twice. He had served penitentiary terms in Ohio and Michigan. He had lived with the Parkers in Ohio and in Kalamazoo, and he had become "intimate" with Mrs. Parker. She and Quicksall had made an agreement that, if that "ever got caught" in their "unlawful intimate relationship," they "would die together." About a week before Mrs. Parker's death on July 2, petitioner was asked by her husband to leave his house, but on that day, at Mrs. Parker's request, he returned to see her. She told him that her husband had threatened to leave and divorce her, and she asked Quicksall to keep their agreement to die together. Thereupon she produced a revolver, and petitioner shot her and then himself. Neighbors who reached the Parker house shortly thereafter saw Mrs. Parker, very near death, lying on a bed, with a revolver near her. On being asked who shot her, she replied, "Charley did." Petitioner was lying on the floor, unconscious, next to the bed. A deputy sheriff who searched the premises found a note on the dresser in the bedroom reading: "July 2, 1937. I am dying, Grace and I together, because we cannot live apart. Charles Quicksall."
from the statement of the respondent that the killing was deliberate and premeditated, and under the testimony of the respondent himself that it was in pursuance of a suicide pact, so-called, the Court finds and determines that respondent is guilty of murder in the first degree, and it is therefore ordered and adjudged that respondent be and he is guilty of murder in the first degree."
"How long will I have to lay here? I wish to Christ it had taken effect on me like it did on her. If I get over this, it will mean life for me anyway."
Notes made contemporaneously supported this testimony. The prosecuting attorney at the time of sentencing was, by reason of paralysis, unavailable as a witness. The sheriff testified that neither he nor the prosecuting attorney, so far as he had knowledge, had refused petitioner permission to communicate with his family, friends, or a lawyer. Petitioner cross-examined the sheriff, but declined to question the deputy sheriff.
The trial judge took no stock in the reconstructing memory of the petitioner, and denied his motion. The Supreme Court of Michigan affirmed. 322 Mich. 351, 33 N.W.2d 904. We brought the case here out of a zealous regard for due observance of the safeguards of the Fourteenth Amendment in the enforcement of a State's penal code. 336 U.S. 916. The record exacts the holding that the petitioner has failed to sustain the burden of proving such a disregard of fundamental fairness in the imposition of punishment by the State as alone would justify this Court to invalidate the sentence by reason of the Due Process Clause.
Petitioner makes no claim that he did not know of his right to be assisted by counsel, see Mich.Stat.Ann. § 28.854 (Henderson 1938), and, in view of his "intelligence, his age, and his earlier experiences in court," the Supreme Court of Michigan rejected the notion that he was not aware of his right to be represented by an attorney. 322 Mich. 351 at 355, 33 N.W.2d 904 at 906. Cf. 334 U. S. S. 666Á v. Burke,@ 334 U. S. 728, 334 U. S. 730. Since the Michigan courts disbelieved petitioner's allegations that he had not been allowed to communicate with his family, his friends, or a lawyer, and no request was made by him for legal aid, the only question is whether, in the circumstances of this case, the failure of the record to show that he was offered counsel offends the Due Process Clause.
At least "when a crime subject to capital punishment is not involved, each case depends on its own facts." Uveges v. Pennsylvania, 335 U. S. 437, 335 U. S. 441; Betts v. Brady, 316 U. S. 455, 316 U. S. 462. To invalidate a plea of guilty, the prisoner must establish that, "for want of benefit of counsel, an ingredient of unfairness actively operated in the process that resulted in his confinement." Foster v. Illinois, 332 U. S. 134, 332 U. S. 137; see Gibbs v. Burke, 337 U. S. 773, 337 U. S. 781. Here, petitioner's claim that the consequences of his plea of guilty had been misrepresented was disbelieved by the tribunal especially qualified to sit in judgment upon its credibility. See Wade v. Mayo, 334 U. S. 672, 334 U. S. 683, 334 U. S. 684. In the light of what emerged in this proceeding upon a scrutiny of what took place before the same judge ten years earlier, when petitioner's plea of guilty was tendered and accepted, it would stultify the Due Process Clause to find that any right of the petitioner was infringed by the sentence which he incurred. [Footnote 3] Foster v. Illinois, supra, at 332 U. S. 138; Bute v. Illinois, 333 U. S. 640, 333 U. S. 670-674.
Betts v. Brady, 316 U. S. 455; Canizio v. New York, 327 U. S. 82; Carter v. Illinois, 329 U. S. 173; De Meerleer v. Michigan, 329 U. S. 663; Foster v. Illinois, 332 U. S. 134; Gayes v. New York, 332 U. S. 145; Marino v. Ragen, 332 U. S. 561; Bute v. Illinois, 333 U. S. 640; Wade v. Mayo, 334 U. S. 672; Gryger v. Burke, 334 U. S. 728; Townsend v. Burke, 334 U. S. 736; Uveges v. Pennsylvania, 335 U. S. 437; Gibbs v. Burke, 337 U. S. 773.
"Whenever any person shall plead guilty to an information filed against him in any court, it shall be the duty of the judge of such court, before pronouncing judgment or sentence upon such plea, to become satisfied after such investigation as he may deem necessary for that purpose respecting the nature of the case, and the circumstances of such plea, that said plea was made freely, with full knowledge of the nature of the accusation, and without undue influence. And whenever said judge shall have reason to doubt the truth of such plea of guilty, it shall be his duty to vacate the same, direct a plea of not guilty to be entered and order a trial of the issue thus formed."

References: § 28
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.