Opinion ID: 586641
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Robbery Convictions

Text: 13 In a 1981 state court proceeding, Johnson pleaded guilty to two counts of armed robbery. No transcript exists for these pleas, but this does not render them invalid. United States v. Ferguson, 935 F.2d 862, 867 (7th Cir.1991), cert. denied, 112 S.Ct. 907 (1992). In fact, the convictions are presumed valid. Id.; United States v. Dickerson, 901 F.2d 579, 583 (7th Cir.1990). To overcome the presumption, Johnson may (1) present direct proof of impropriety or (2) point to flaws in state rules or in the practices of the court taking the plea. United States v. Polk, 908 F.2d 212, 215 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 111 S.Ct. 534 (1990). Johnson fails to do this. 14 Johnson first discusses a transcript from another proceeding before the same judge. According to Johnson, this transcript illustrates improper procedures because the judge failed to mention the right to plead not guilty. See Henry, 713 F.Supp. at 1187. Even if this is true, Johnson cannot claim constitutional error because he was involved in a change of plea hearing. Henry, 933 F.2d at 560. Johnson, who had already pled not guilty to the charges, was presumed cognizant of his right to persist in his plea. Id. 15 Johnson also alleges that the court did not inform him of his right to confront witnesses. To prove this, he presents his own affidavit, which claims that the court informed him only of the right to a jury. As discussed above, since Johnson's affidavit is self-serving, United States v. DeForest, 946 F.2d 523, 526 (7th Cir.1991), cert. denied, 112 S.Ct. 1235 (1992), it alone cannot provide grounds for reversal. Id. 16 Johnson, however, also presents a half-sheet and a court sheet. These sheets contain handwritten notes documenting Johnson's plea proceeding. Neither uses complete sentences to describe the events, and neither purports to be a full explanation of the court's actions. The half-sheet states Dfts warned & now signs jury waivers, and the court sheet says jury waiver, D's admonished. 17 This language is insufficient to rebut the presumption of regularity in court proceedings. The statements are ambiguous; Dfts warned and D's admonished could mean that the defendants were informed of all their rights. Even disregarding the ambiguity, the sheets are cursory, and probably incomplete. 18 Also undermining Johnson's claim is his failure to appeal his plea in the state courts. Dickerson, 901 F.2d at 583. We presume the validity of pleas that are first challenged in an attempt to avoid 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(1). Id. If Johnson wishes to overcome this presumption, he should provide evidence more convincing than his own affidavit and some ambiguous court notes.