Source: https://m.openjurist.org/442/f3d/789/hanson-v-phillips-ii
Timestamp: 2019-06-17 10:41:30
Document Index: 64045364

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 2254', '§ 2254', '§ 2254', '§ 2254', '§ 2254', '§ 2254']

442 F3d 789 Hanson v. Phillips II | OpenJurist
442 F. 3d 789 - Hanson v. Phillips II
442 F3d 789 Hanson v. Phillips II
442 F.3d 789
Paul HANSON, Petitioner-Appellant,
Francis PHILLIPS, II, Respondent-Appellee.
Docket No. 04-0940-PR.
Argued: January 18, 2005.
Decided: March 30, 2006.
Petitioner-Appellant Paul Hanson ("Hanson") appeals from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Colleen McMahon, Judge) denying his petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. This appeal presents two issues. The first issue is whether we should dismiss this appeal pursuant to the fugitive disentitlement doctrine because Hanson was a fugitive from justice for two months. As Hanson has been apprehended and prosecuted for bail jumping, we conclude that there are no legitimate justifications for dismissing this appeal. The second issue presented is whether the state appellate court unreasonably applied Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238, 89 S.Ct. 1709, 23 L.Ed.2d 274 (1969), in determining that Hanson entered his plea of guilty intelligently and voluntarily. Because the record does not affirmatively disclose that Hanson intelligently and voluntarily pleaded guilty, as required under Boykin, we reverse and remand for issuance of the writ.
Hanson was subsequently sentenced to fifteen days' incarceration to be followed by three years' probation.2 He appealed his conviction and sentence to the New York State Supreme Court, Appellate Term arguing that his guilty plea was involuntary. The Appellate Term rejected Hanson's claim and unanimously held that "[d]espite defendant's contention to the contrary, we are of the opinion that defendant's plea of guilty was made knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently." People v. Hanson, No.2002-1043 OR CR, 2003 WL 21730001 (N.Y.App. Term June 5, 2003) (citing People v. Harris, 61 N.Y.2d 9, 471 N.Y.S.2d 61, 459 N.E.2d 170 (1983)). New York State Court of Appeals denied Hanson's application for leave to appeal. People v. Hanson, 100 N.Y.2d 582, 764 N.Y.S.2d 392, 796 N.E.2d 484 (2003).
By summary order dated February 17, 2005, we remanded the matter to the District Court to determine, by whatever procedures it deemed necessary and appropriate, the exact circumstances surrounding Hanson's failures to appear in state court. We retained jurisdiction to rule upon the motion and, if appropriate, decide the issues on appeal once the record had been supplemented. See United States v. Jacobson, 15 F.3d 19, 21-22 (2d Cir.1994).
A. The Fugitive Disentitlement Doctrine
Federal courts "have authority to dismiss an appeal or writ of certiorari if the party seeking relief is a fugitive while the matter is pending." Degen v. United States, 517 U.S. 820, 824, 116 S.Ct. 1777, 135 L.Ed.2d 102 (1996). Even if the appellant is no longer a fugitive during the pendency of his appeal, courts have the authority to dismiss a criminal appeal under the fugitive disentitlement doctrine where there is some nexus between "a defendant's [prior] fugitive status and his appeal." Ortega-Rodriguez v. United States, 507 U.S. 234, 249, 113 S.Ct. 1199, 122 L.Ed.2d 581 (1993).
Although we have never dismissed an appeal of a habeas proceeding on fugitive disentitlement grounds, other courts have done so. See Bagwell v. Dretke, 376 F.3d 408, 412 (5th Cir.2004) (holding that the doctrine applies in cases under 28 U.S.C. § 2254); Lopez v. Malley, 552 F.2d 682, 683 (10th Cir.1977) (applying the fugitive disentitlement doctrine to dismiss a petition for habeas corpus).
There are four independent justifications for disentitlement: (1) assuring the enforceability of a decision against a fugitive; (2) imposing a penalty for flouting the judicial process; (3) discouraging flights from justice to promote efficient operation of the courts; and (4) avoiding prejudice to the other side engendered by a defendant's flight. Bar-Levy v. United States Dep't of Justice, 990 F.2d 33, 35 (2d Cir.1993). Fugitive disentitlement is an "equitable doctrine" that may be applied at court discretion. SEC v. Berger, 322 F.3d 187, 191 (2d Cir.2003).
As Hanson is now in custody and has been prosecuted and sentenced for bail jumping, all of the justifications for disentitlement militate against dismissing this appeal.5 Any decision we render will be enforceable against Hanson. See Ortega-Rodriguez, 507 U.S. at 244, 113 S.Ct. 1199 (finding that there were no enforceability concerns because the defendant had been returned to custody); cf. United States v. Awadalla, 357 F.3d 243, 246 (2d Cir.2004) (dismissing appeal where fugitive's whereabouts were unknown). His incarceration prevents him from hedging against an unfavorable outcome by being beyond the reach of law enforcement.
There is no need for us to impose a penalty for flouting the judicial process. The Orange County Court has already sentenced Hanson to a term of one to three years for bail jumping. Adding the second punishment of disenfranchisement would introduce the type of "arbitrariness and irrationality into sentencing for escape" that the Supreme Court has cautioned against. Ortega-Rodriguez, 507 U.S. at 248, 113 S.Ct. 1199; see also Degen, 517 U.S. at 828, 116 S.Ct. 1777. Moreover, using the "blunderbuss" of appellate dismissal, Ortega-Rodriguez, 507 U.S. at 247, 113 S.Ct. 1199, in this case to discourage flights from justice to promote efficient operation of the courts is "too blunt an instrument" for advancing that goal, Degen, 517 U.S. at 828, 116 S.Ct. 1777. The Orange County Court has already crafted a more appropriate response.
It is true that his flight has given rise to a "flurry of extraneous matters" diverting not only our attention from the merits of this matter, but also the District Court and the Magistrate Judge from other matters on their already crowded dockets. Ortega-Rodriguez, 507 U.S. at 245, 113 S.Ct. 1199. Efficient operation of the courts, however, is not a sufficient justification for disentitlement in this case because Hanson is now in custody. See Ortega-Rodriguez, 507 U.S. at 245, 113 S.Ct. 1199 ("[E]fficient operation of the appellate process . . . will not be advanced by dismissal of appeals filed after former fugitives are recaptured.") (citations and internal quotation marks omitted).
Finally, Hanson's flight has not caused any prejudice to the State in this case. Certainly, "a long escape, even if ended before sentencing and appeal, may so delay the onset of appellate proceedings that the Government would be prejudiced in locating witnesses and presenting evidence at retrial after a successful appeal." Ortega-Rodriguez, 507 U.S. at 249, 113 S.Ct. 1199 (noting the Eleventh Circuit's position). Hanson's flight lasted only two months and cannot be correctly classified as "a long escape." The delay in this case derives primarily from the nature of the proceeding (a post-conviction habeas petition), the State's motion to dismiss, and the time we have taken to resolve the matter.
B. The Merits of Hanson's Petition
We review de novo the District Court's denial of Hanson's petition for habeas relief. Hines v. Miller, 318 F.3d 157, 160 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 538 U.S. 1040, 123 S.Ct. 2089, 155 L.Ed.2d 1075 (2003). Hanson's habeas corpus petition is governed by 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1) as modified by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 ("AEDPA"), Pub.L. No. 104-132, 110 Stat. 1214. Title 28, section 2254(d) provides in pertinent part:
A state court decision is contrary to clearly established federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court, when "the state court arrives at a conclusion opposite to that reached by [the Supreme] Court on a question of law or if the state court decides a case differently than [the Supreme] Court has on a set of materially indistinguishable facts." Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362, 413, 120 S.Ct. 1495, 146 L.Ed.2d 389 (2000). Under the "unreasonable application" clause of 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1), "a federal habeas court may grant the writ if the state court identifies the correct governing legal principle from [the Supreme] Court's decisions but unreasonably applies that principle to the facts of the prisoner's case." Williams, 529 U.S. at 413, 120 S.Ct. 1495.
It is beyond dispute that the Supreme Court's decision in Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238, 89 S.Ct. 1709, 23 L.Ed.2d 274 (1969) was, at the time of the Appellate Term's decision, and continues to be "clearly established Federal law" for the proposition that the trial court must produce a record affirmatively showing that the defendant's guilty plea was knowing and voluntary. See, e.g., Bradshaw v. Stumpf, ___ U.S. ___, 125 S.Ct. 2398, 2405, 162 L.Ed.2d 143 (2005) ("[T]he court taking a defendant's plea is responsible for ensuring `a record adequate for any review that may be later sought.'") (quoting Boykin, 395 U.S. at 244, 89 S.Ct. 1709); United States v. Dominguez Benitez, 542 U.S. 74, 84 n. 10, 124 S.Ct. 2333, 159 L.Ed.2d 157 (2004) ("[W]hen the record of a criminal conviction obtained by guilty plea contains no evidence that a defendant knew of the rights he was putatively waiving, the conviction must be reversed.") (citing Boykin, 395 U.S. at 243, 89 S.Ct. 1709); Parke v. Raley, 506 U.S. 20, 29, 113 S.Ct. 517, 121 L.Ed.2d 391 (1992) ("In Boykin the Court found reversible error when a trial judge accepted a defendant's guilty plea without creating a record affirmatively showing that the plea was knowing and voluntary."); Bordenkircher v. Hayes, 434 U.S. 357, 362, 98 S.Ct. 663, 54 L.Ed.2d 604 (1978) (noting "the need for a public record indicating that a plea was knowingly and voluntarily made" under Boykin).
The District Court correctly analyzed Hanson's claim under the "unreasonable application" clause of section 2254(d)(1).6 Analysis under the "contrary to" clause would have been inappropriate because, as discussed below, the case cited by the Appellate Term, People v. Harris, 61 N.Y.2d 9, 471 N.Y.S.2d 61, 459 N.E.2d 170 (1983), is not "diametrically different, opposite in character or nature, or mutually opposed" to Boykin. See Lindstadt v. Keane, 239 F.3d 191, 198 (2d Cir.2001) (analyzing case under the "unreasonable" application clause where the standard applied by the state court was not "diametrically different, opposite in character or nature, or mutually opposed" to the federal standard) (internal quotation marks omitted); Harris v. Kuhlmann, 346 F.3d 330, 344 (2d Cir.2003) (holding that the district court should have analyzed the petition under the "unreasonable application" clause rather than the "contrary to" clause where the state appellate court cited to a state court case that applied the applicable Supreme Court precedent). Nor are the facts of Hanson's case "governed by any case in which the Court encountered a `materially indistinguishable' set of facts." Lindstadt, 239 F.3d at 198. Therefore, relief is appropriate only if the Appellate Term "unreasonably applie[d]" clearly established federal law.
The Appellate Term correctly identified Harris, a New York Court of Appeals case applying the holding of Boykin and other Supreme Court precedent on the voluntariness of guilty pleas, as containing the appropriate federal legal standard. See Harris, 61 N.Y.2d at 17-19, 471 N.Y.S.2d 61, 459 N.E.2d 170; see also Harris v. Kuhlmann, 346 F.3d at 344 ("The Appellate Division reviewing Harris's case correctly identified the relevant federal law applicable to Harris's Batson claims, because in summarily affirming the trial court it cited a case applying the holding of Batson."). To obtain relief under the "unreasonable application" clause of 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1), Hanson must show that the Appellate Term applied the federal principle from Boykin, through Harris, "to the facts of his case in an objectively unreasonable manner." See Eze v. Senkowski, 321 F.3d 110, 124 (2d Cir.2003) (internal quotation marks omitted). A showing that the Appellate Term was merely incorrect is insufficient. Id.; see also Williams, 529 U.S. at 410, 120 S.Ct. 1495 ("[A]n unreasonable application of federal law is different from an incorrect application of federal law." (emphasis in original)). Rather, "some increment of incorrectness beyond error is required." Francis S. v. Stone, 221 F.3d 100, 111 (2d Cir.2000).
"A guilty plea operates as a waiver of important rights, and is valid only if done voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently, with sufficient awareness of the relevant circumstances and likely consequences." Bradshaw, ___ U.S. ___, 125 S.Ct. at 2405; (quoting Brady v. United States, 397 U.S. 742, 748, 90 S.Ct. 1463, 25 L.Ed.2d 747 (1970) (internal quotation marks omitted)). A court may not accept a plea "without an affirmative showing that it was intelligent and voluntary." Boykin, 395 U.S. at 242, 89 S.Ct. 1709; Brady, 397 U.S. at 747 n. 4, 90 S.Ct. 1463 (noting that Boykin stands for the proposition that the "record [on appeal] must affirmatively disclose that a defendant who pleaded guilty entered his plea understandingly and voluntarily."). While a trial judge is required to make a record that affirmatively discloses that the defendant's guilty plea is intelligent and voluntary, he or she is not required by federal law to engage in any particular interrogatory "catechism" akin to that required of federal courts by Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11. See Siegel v. New York, 691 F.2d 620, 626 (2d Cir.1982). The voluntariness of a guilty plea is reviewed by examining the totality of the relevant circumstances. Willbright v. Smith, 745 F.2d 779, 780 (2d Cir.1984) (per curiam) (citing Brady, 397 U.S. at 749, 90 S.Ct. 1463).
The role of Hanson's attorney in this plea colloquy demands closer attention. Hanson was represented by an experienced defense attorney, who had represented him on prior occasions. We have stated previously that "a significant factor in determining whether a plea is intelligently and voluntarily entered is whether it was based on the advice of competent counsel." Willbright, 745 F.2d at 781 (citing Siegel, 691 F.2d at 626 n. 6). The "affirmative disclosure" requirement may be met if the record shows that the defendant consulted with his attorney about the consequences of a guilty plea. See North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25, 29 n. 3, 91 S.Ct. 160, 27 L.Ed.2d 162 (1970) (stating that Boykin was satisfied because the record from the state court hearing on post-conviction relief affirmatively disclosed that "Alford had been fully informed by his attorney as to his rights on a plea of not guilty and as to the consequences of a plea of guilty").
The record does not affirmatively disclose whether Hanson consulted with his attorney regarding the consequences of his plea. Judge Schwartz delayed the calling of the case twice. These delays, however, were for Hanson's attorney to negotiate a plea with the Assistant District Attorney and not to consult with her client. Certainly, as found by Judge Schwartz, Hanson had "opportunities" to consult with his attorney. Under Boykin, however, we may not infer that Hanson availed himself of these opportunities. In Boykin, the defense counsel was appointed three days prior to the defendant's arraignment and guilty plea. Id. at 239, 89 S.Ct. 1709. The Court did not infer a knowing waiver from the defendant's three-day "opportunity" to consult with his client, and we decline to do so here.
For the foregoing reasons the Appellate Term's conclusion that Hanson "knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently" entered his guilty plea was an unreasonable application of Boykin. It may well be that Hanson, in fact, understood his alternatives, but we are unable to conclude so based on this record, and it is the trial court's responsibility to ensure "a record adequate for any review that may be later sought." Boykin, 395 U.S. at 244, 89 S.Ct. 1709.
61 N.Y.2d 9, 17, 471 N.Y.S.2d 61, 459 N.E.2d 170 (1983) (citations, internal quotation marks, and alterations omitted). In addition, while our view of the wide expanse of New York pleading practice is necessarily limited, we are persuaded that it is the common and general practice of New York judges to engage pleading defendants in colloquies, sometimes wisely enshrined in formal, written waivers,8 that, though various in style, are sufficient to meet the minimal requirements imposed by the federal constitution.9 See, e.g., Nesby v. Senkowski, No. 93 Civ. 6114, 1994 WL 613322, at *2-*3 (S.D.N.Y. Nov.7, 1994) (reciting record of state court establishing that Boykin was satisfied); Pendleton v. Scully, 664 F.Supp. 100, 101 (S.D.N.Y.1987) (documenting state trial court's twice-repeated warning to a criminal defendant that "by pleading guilty he would be waiving the right to a jury trial, the privilege against self-incrimination and the right to confront his accusers."). Based on New York law and these snapshots of New York practice, we do not expect that our holding today, reaffirming the requirement, set forth in Boykin, that judgments entered after guilty pleas must be founded upon records sufficient in their totality to show intelligent and voluntary waiver of the protections guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States, will either shock our state court colleagues or do damage to the venerable precedents established by our state brethren. Let us reiterate: this opinion should not be understood to require a trial judge to ask any specific questions of the defendant, whether concerning specific constitutional rights or otherwise. But, if Boykin is to have any meaning at all, there must be some evidence on the record which affirmatively discloses that the defendant understood the alternative to pleading guilty.
As we can presume nothing from a silent record, we conclude that the Appellate Term "unreasonably applied . . . clearly established Federal law as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States," 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1), by affirming the judgment against petitioner based on this record because it does not affirmatively disclose that Hanson intelligently and voluntarily pleaded guilty.
The District Court correctly struck two sections from the report. The first of these paragraphs contained an affirmative statement from Hanson to the effect that he desired to have his petition decided on the merits and had not intended his absence to impact its resolution. As Hanson invoked his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination during the Magistrate Judge's inquest, it was improper for him to offer any affirmative testimonySee Brown v. United States, 356 U.S. 148, 155, 78 S.Ct. 622, 2 L.Ed.2d 589 (1958) (holding that a witness who invokes his right against self-incrimination "has no right to set forth to the jury all the facts which tend in his favor without laying himself open to a cross-examination upon those facts"). The second section was stricken because the District Court concluded that the section exceeded the limited purpose of the remand as it made a finding as to Hanson's intent to impact this appeal through his absence.
We have interpreted the Supreme Court's decision inDegen as standing for the proposition that "in civil cases, `the most persuasive justifications for disentitlement are now (1) the inability to enforce a decision rendered by the appellate court, and (2) the need to avoid prejudice to the other party resulting from the defendant's fugitive status.'" United States v. Awadalla, 357 F.3d 243, 246 (2d Cir.2004) (quoting SEC v. Berger, 322 F.3d 187, 192 (2d Cir.2003)) (internal emphasis in original). Although habeas petitions have historically been treated as civil in nature, Ventura v. Meachum, 957 F.2d 1048, 1052 (2d Cir.1992), they may fall outside the ambit of a "civil action" in certain circumstances. See Vacchio v. Ashcroft, 404 F.3d 663, 668 (2d Cir. 2005) (holding that the defendant's habeas petition for a release from immigration detention qualified as a "civil action" under the Equal Access to Justice Act, but that a criminal habeas petition would not). In this context, however, we need not decide on what side of the civil-criminal divide habeas petitions fall because, under either standard, none of the justifications support disentitlement in this case.
We note for the sake of completeness that Hanson does not dispute that the Appellate Term adjudicated his claim on the merits. As we held inSellan v. Kuhlman, a state court "adjudicates" a state prisoner's federal claim on the merits when it "(1) disposes of the claim `on the merits,' and (2) reduces its disposition to judgment. . . . even if the state court does not explicitly refer to either the federal claim or to relevant federal case law." 261 F.3d 303, 312 (2d Cir.2001). "[T]he state court need only dispose of the petitioner's federal claim on substantive grounds, and reduce that disposition to judgment. No further articulation of its rationale or elucidation of its reasoning process is required." Aparicio v. Artuz, 269 F.3d 78, 94 (2d Cir.2001). Although brief, the Appellate Term's statement that Hanson's "plea of guilty was made knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently" and its citation to People v. Harris, 61 N.Y.2d 9, 471 N.Y.S.2d 61, 459 N.E.2d 170 (1983) show that it resolved Hanson's claim on substantive grounds. Furthermore, the Appellate Term's citation to Harris—a New York Court of Appeals decision interpreting Boykin and other Supreme Court cases on the constitutionality of guilty pleas—and the trial court's citation to North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25, 31, 91 S.Ct. 160, 27 L.Ed.2d 162 (1970), in its decision and order denying Hanson's motion to withdraw his plea indicates that the Appellate Term was aware of the federal constitutional dimension of the issue on appeal.
Judge Leval would note further, although recognizing that Hanson did not make this argument, that Hanson was never asked how he pleaded and never uttered words to the effect that he was pleading guilty. To be sure, Hanson acknowledged acts that constituted the offense, but as the Supreme Court stressed inBoykin, admitting having done the acts that violated the law is a different thing from pleading guilty, which is a formal consent to the entry of a guilty verdict. See Boykin, 395 U.S. at 242, 89 S.Ct. 1709 ("A plea of guilty is more than a confession which admits that the accused did various acts; it is itself a conviction; nothing remains but to give judgment and determine punishment.").
One such waiver, identified by counsel as being used by Westchester County courts, is part of the record before us. While New York courts labor under no federal constitutional duty to use such forms, we think it worth noting that had the record of Hanson's plea included such a detailed waiver, the concerns with silence stated inBoykin and Harris would have no application here.