Case Name: UNITED STATES of America v. James PRICE, Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1970-12-17
Citations: 436 F.2d 303
Docket Number: No. 23217
Parties: UNITED STATES of America v. James PRICE, Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: Federal Reporter 2d Series
Volume: 436
Pages: 303–305

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America v. James PRICE, Appellant.
No. 23217.
United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit.
Argued June 22, 1970.
Decided Dec. 17, 1970.
Mr. Michael A. Schuchat, Washington, D.C. (appointed by this Court) for appellant.
Mr Julius A. Johnson, Asst. U.S. Atty., with whom Messrs. Thomas A. Flannery, U.S. Atty., and John A. Terry. Asst. U.S. Atty., were on the brief, for appellee.
Before BAZELON, Chief Judge, WILBUR K. MILLER, Senior Circuit Judge, and DAVIS , Judge, United States Court of Claims.
Sitting by designation pursuant to Title 28, U.S.Code, Section 293(a).

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
The judgment is affirmed.
Judge DAVIS has filed an opinion and Chief Judge BAZELON has filed a dissenting opinion.
DAVIS, Judge:
I vote to affirm. On the point discussed by Chief Judge Bazelon, this ease should not be viewed, in my opinion, as if the trial court had rejected the defendant's proffer of a plea of guilty to a lesser included offense after the judge learned that the defendant maintained innocence. As I understand the record, defense counsel made no such proffer. He simply informed the court of a conversation he had had with the appellant on the matter of such a plea, and the judge then indicated his agreement with the attorney's position. This was not the proffer of a guilty plea, but the exact opposite. In the circumstances, the judge was not required to probe further, to disabuse the lawyer of his views, or to insist that a plea be presented by counsel or discussed again with the defendant. I see the case, in other words, as no different than if the plea-discussion had never been reported to the judge, or if he had remained silent when counsel "told him of that conversation. On that basis, the only remaining issue (on this point) is whether the lawyer's advice to his client amounted to such inadequate assistance as to call for reversal of the conviction. In the state of the law at the time of the occurrence, I do not think that counsel's actions reached that level. Even if the advice was erroneous, it did not, in my judgment, breach the Sixth Amendment's requirement of assistance.