Source: https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F2/417/584/190577/
Timestamp: 2019-10-17 22:31:10
Document Index: 407774270

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 3001', '§ 6400', '§ 3051', '§ 6451', '§ 3200', '§ 6520']

Sammy Bianez Chavez, Appellant, v. Lawrence E. Wilson, Warden, Appellee, 417 F.2d 584 (9th Cir. 1969) :: Justia
Justia › US Law › Case Law › Federal Courts › Courts of Appeals › Ninth Circuit › 1969 › Sammy Bianez Chavez, Appellant, v. Lawrence E. Wilson, Warden, Appellee
Sammy Bianez Chavez, Appellant, v. Lawrence E. Wilson, Warden, Appellee, 417 F.2d 584 (9th Cir. 1969)
US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit - 417 F.2d 584 (9th Cir. 1969) October 9, 1969
Before DUNIWAY and ELY, Circuit Judges, and SMITH* , District Judge.
"THE COURT: Has anybody made you any promises of a lesser sentence, probation, reward, immunity or anything else in order to induce you to plead guilty?
THE COURT: Do you understand the matter of probation and sentence is to be determined solely by this Court?
THE COURT: Are you pleading guilty because in truth and in fact you are guilty and for no other reason, is that correct?
Under the circumstances, we cannot say that the record demonstrates that Chavez is entitled to no relief. The contention that a guilty plea was not entered knowingly or voluntarily can seldom be resolved without a hearing because most allegations that the plea was induced by lack of knowledge or by a broken promise, or by some other improper factor, involve facts outside the record. See, e. g., Bright v. Rhay, 9 Cir., 1968, 391 F.2d 915; Smiley v. Wilson, 9 Cir., 1967, 378 F.2d 144; Johnson v. Wilson, 9 Cir., 1967, 371 F.2d 911; Doran v. Wilson, 9 Cir., 1966, 369 F.2d 505; Gilmore v. California, 9 Cir., 1966, 364 F.2d 916. These cases, we think, require that Chavez be given a hearing.
"Counsel * * * promised petitioner the judge had agreed to sentence petitioner to the hospital. * * *
"The plea was entered * * * on the promise of the petitioner being sent to the hospital. Petitioner was unaware a guilty plea would result in a prison sentence."
"On or about February 1, 1965, petitioner was asked to enter a plea of guilty to a charge of violation of Section 11500 of the Health and Safety Code, to wit; Possession of Heroin. Counsel entered Chambers with the District Attorney and Judge where a discussion took place out of petitioner's presence. Counsel told petitioner, following the conference, that if petitioner would plead guilty the Judge was willing to recommend petitioner to the Narcotic Hospital for treatment. Petitioner, after being informed of this, did enter a guilty plea expecting to be referred to Department #95 for said committment [sic]. Following the plea of guilty, however, the Judge sentenced petitioner to the term prescribed for by law in case No. 291,603 with the recommendation that petitioner receive the treatment through the Department of Corrections and also sentenced to the term prescribed for by law in case No. 296,744, to run concurrent and the priors in both cases were found to be true and also a further recommendation made that petitioner receive treatment through the Department of Corrections. The prior convictions aggravated petitioner's committment [sic] thus the sentence is Ten (10) years to Life. * * * Counsel assured petitioner upon consulting the Judge and Prosecuting Attorney in chambers, that if petitioner would plead guilty the Judge was willing to recommend petitioner to the Narcotic Hospital for treatment in compliance with Section 6451 of the Penal Code. * * * At no time did counsel or the court advise petitioner that the `guilty plea' could or would result in a prison sentence."
"It stands uncontidicted [sic] that the Petitioner would plead guilty freely, voluntary [sic], and without threats or fear because it was Petitioner's understanding that he would be sent to the hospital for necessary treatment in exchange for the guilty plea. Prior to entering the guilty plea counsel advised Petitioner not to say anything in court in regards to the agreement while being sentenced."
The facility is under the jurisdiction of the California Department of Corrections. (Cal.Welf.&Inst.C. § 3001, formerly Cal. Pen.C. § 6400.) California law permits the trial judge, upon conviction of a crime in Superior Court, if it appears that the defendant is a narcotic addict, to adjourn proceedings or suspend sentence, conduct proceedings to determine the fact of addiction, and commit the defendant to the facility for treatment. (Cal.Welf.&Inst.C. § 3051, formerly Cal. Pen.C. § 6451.) If the defendant is thereafter rehabilitated, the criminal charge may be dismissed (Cal.Welf.&Inst. C. § 3200, formerly Cal.Pen.C. § 6520)