Opinion ID: 577016
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The 1974-1975 Plea and Sentencing Proceedings

Text: 5 On May 15, 1974 a New York City branch of the Franklin National Bank was robbed of $21,770 by a sole gunman brandishing a silver .38 caliber handgun at a teller. As he left the bank the robber fired a shot at a security guard. Three days later, Harry Nicks (hereafter appellee, petitioner, or defendant) was arrested in Cranford, New Jersey for a traffic violation. He was driving a new car, from which police recovered $11,450 in cash and a silver .38 caliber revolver containing one spent cartridge. Nicks' photograph was shown to the bank teller who identified him as the robber. 6 On June 7, 1974 defendant was charged in a two-count indictment with the robbery of the bank, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a), and assault with a dangerous weapon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113(d). Thomas J. Concannon, Esq. of the New York Federal Defender Services Unit was appointed as counsel. At arraignment before Judge Knapp on June 17, 1974 Nicks pled guilty to the second count of the indictment. During the plea allocution, Nicks responded appropriately to Judge Knapp's questions, except for asserting that he had not loaded the gun until after he left the bank. Noting that this statement did not fit the facts of the charge, the trial judge directed him to confer with his attorney. Following a recess, counsel informed the court that his client told him the gun was loaded when he entered the bank, and Nicks allocuted this fact to the court. When asked whether he had ever been convicted before, defendant stated that I pleaded, the same thing I'm doing now. 7 Following the plea, the district court asked attorney Concannon whether he was perfectly satisfied that [his client] understands what he is doing, to which counsel replied that he was. The court then observed that [defendant] is not under any mental condition, it doesn't seem to me. To this, Nicks replied no, and his counsel testified I have discussed it with him for three or four hours. He seems to understand very well what he is doing. 8 On July 2, 1974 at defense counsel's request an order was entered pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 4244 directing that defendant be examined by Dr. Norman Weiss, a psychiatrist, who reported the results of his examination in a July 15, 1974 letter to attorney Concannon, a copy of which was furnished to the district judge. Dr. Weiss diagnosed Nicks as mentally retarded and probably borderline psychotic, though he observed defendant appeared oriented for time, place, and person and appeared to be clear when questioned about the charges against him. In addressing Nicks' competency, Dr. Weiss concluded that I question his competency. 9 As a result, Judge Knapp on July 25, 1974 ordered defendant committed for an additional 60-day study to the Federal Correctional Institution in Milan, Michigan (Milan) under § 5010(e) of the Federal Youth Corrections Act, which provides for commitment and study when a sentencing court wants additional information about a defendant prior to sentencing. There, defendant was examined by Dr. Peter Davol, a psychiatrist, and Dr. Thomas J. Rosenbaum, a psychologist. Dr. Davol diagnosed appellee as suffering from schizophrenia, paranoid type (acute and severe), but found that he appeared to understand the reasons for his being at Milan and the nature of his study, and when he doesn't feel threatened and where the conversation involves relatively conflict-free subjects, [Nicks] is reasonably alert and 'together.'  The Milan report did not directly address the issue of competency, but recommended that defendant be sentenced to an eight-year indeterminate sentence under § 5010(c) of the Federal Youth Corrections Act. 10 At sentencing on January 16, 1975 neither Nicks nor his counsel requested a competency hearing nor did either seek to withdraw the previously entered guilty plea. In fact, when the sentencing judge asked counsel, Are you satisfied in your own mind, Mr. Concannon, that Mr. Nicks understands the significance of what he is asking to be done? Concannon replied Yes, I do. I am satisfied, Your Honor. In addition, Your Honor, I still believe at the time of the inquiry of the plea that Mr. Nicks knew what he was doing, he understood what was happening. Defendant then responded to the court's inquiries regarding the crime, after which Judge Knapp concluded, It does appear that the defendant understands the essentials of the charge that was placed against him. At counsel's request, the district court asked appellee whether he wanted a competency hearing and whether he wanted to have his plea withdrawn, to which Nicks replied, I want to be sentenced. Judge Knapp then sentenced defendant to an indeterminate term of up to eight years under the Federal Youth Corrections Act.