Opinion ID: 353179
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: discussion of the law

Text: 114
115 The State argues that Judge Duffy erred in entirely disregarding the state court's determination that Suggs was competent when he pleaded guilty, a determination reached after what the State claims was a full evidentiary hearing, and amply support(ed) by the record. Brief for Appellant at 34-35. Principles of comity and federalism, we need not be reminded, require us to accord great weight, id. at 36, to a state court's factual findings, made after a full and fair hearing. LaVallee v. Delle Rose, 410 U.S. 690, 93 S.Ct. 1203, 35 L.Ed.2d 675 (1973) (per curiam); Townsend v. Sain, 372 U.S. 293, 83 S.Ct. 745, 9 L.Ed.2d 770 (1963); Jennings v. Casscles, No. 77-2064, 568 F.2d 229, 232 & n. 1 (2d Cir. 1977); 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d). 53 116 The State's position may be broken down into four contentions. First, the State asserts that it was contrary to principles of federalism and comity to ask the state court merely to take testimony and make findings on whether certain key individuals had knowledge of the Messinger reports without requesting that the competency issue be resolved as well. Brief for Appellant at 37-38. Thus, the argument continues, while the district court itself had the option of holding an evidentiary hearing on competency or of allowing the state court to do so, the narrow limits which the district court said it had imposed on the state court's decisionmaking function, see note 35 supra, are impermissible. Second, the State urges that the limits specified by Judge Duffy, 422 F.Supp. at 1044-45, were an afterthought because the referral was not so limited. See note 35 supra. Third, the State argues that Suggs not only made no objection to the state court's deciding the issue of competency, but vigorously litigated the question. Finally, the State contends that the district court's conclusion, 422 F.Supp. at 1045, that the merits of the factual dispute were not fully resolved, 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1), because Justice Gold did not testify, see II, H, 4, supra, was erroneous. 117 We need not settle the knotty issues raised by the State. 54 In our view, whether Justice Melia's findings were supported by the evidence was sufficiently doubtful to justify ordering a further evidentiary hearing in the district court's discretion under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(8). Moreover, there were material facts inadequately developed at the state court hearing. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(3). 118
119 We have previously noted Justice Melia's finding that Justice Nunez could not have believed Suggs incompetent, else he would not have accepted the plea. People v. Suggs, supra, Nos. 3063/68, 3063A/68, 2251/68, at 29. Justice Melia, however, did not discuss (1) the factual or the legal impact of the colloquy concerning Suggs' mother cutting off his finger that prompted Justice Nunez on his own motion to order a psychiatric report, (2) Justice Nunez' testimony that he filed such an order to determine whether Suggs was competent to be tried, or (3) Justice Nunez' explicit recognition in the plea minutes that (the doctors) may be able to help (Suggs) . . . because there is something wrong . . ., apparently. Plea Minutes at 21. In addition, Justice Melia's conclusion that the plea minutes revealed no impairment of capacity to exercise judgment or unusual behavior flies in the face of the impressions drawn by Justice Nunez, who was obviously in a better position to evaluate Suggs' demeanor at the time of the pleas. Justice Melia's omission to analyze this evidence was sufficient, in and of itself, to raise subsection (8) doubt whether the state court finding of competency was supported by the evidence. 120 Justice Melia's conclusion that Justice Nunez would not have accepted Suggs' plea if he did not believe Suggs to be competent is defective for another reason. If, as Justice Nunez testified, Suggs' commitment was for all purposes, his acceptance of the plea was necessarily conditional, that is, subject to the condition subsequent of a finding of competency. And Justice Gold's subsequent finding of incompetency to stand trial (acquiesced in by the State) obviously related back to the date of the pleas. The finding was a judicial determination that Suggs had been incompetent at least since the day he was committed by Justice Nunez for psychiatric examination. As Judge Duffy stated: 121 Such a psychiatric report, and its subsequent ratification by the court, attesting to a defendant's incompetency, must be interpreted as conclusively invalidating any plea that constitutes a voluntary relinquishment of rights made at a time when a defendant is suffering under such a disability. 122 390 F.Supp. at 387 (citations omitted). See Saddler v. United States, 531 F.2d 83, 84 (2d Cir. 1976) (per curiam) (retrospective examination into defendant's mental competency three years earlier at plea granted on appeal from denial of 28 U.S.C. § 2255 petition); cf. People v. Hudson, 19 N.Y.2d 137, 278 N.Y.S.2d 593, 225 N.E.2d 193 (1967) (remanding after verdict, pursuant to the dictates of then recently decided Pate v. Robinson, supra, for an evidentiary hearing on defendant's competency at the time of trial, without the need to conduct a new trial on guilt or innocence if defendant is found to have been competent), cert. denied, 398 U.S. 944, 90 S.Ct. 1852, 26 L.Ed.2d 281 (1970). Thus Justice Gold's commitment order conclusively invalidated the pleas. Yet Justice Melia attached little or no importance to Justice Gold's determination. See note 40 supra. 123 Justice Melia made other findings that were also directly contradicted by the record. While noting the importance of Mr. Tucker's view that Suggs was not incompetent, Justice Melia disregarded Tucker's testimony that he would have requested a psychiatric examination before allowing Suggs to plead had he known of the Messinger report. 55 Justice Melia also found Dr. Messinger's testimony more credible and reliable than that of Drs. Lubin and Kadar. Yet Dr. Lubin's first diagnosis was prepared only six days after the plea in question, and Dr. Messinger conceded the possibility that Suggs' condition could have deteriorated during the seven weeks between his examination and the day of the plea proceeding. Furthermore, all doctors agreed that Drs. Lubin and Kadar had performed a more thorough examination than did Dr. Messinger. A copy of the Messinger report was not even ordered by the state courts to determine Suggs' competency to stand trial. Moreover, Dr. Messinger acknowledged that Suggs could have been experiencing psychotic episodes during the July, 1968, examination. The doctor further revealed that he would not have been aware of this mental state unless manifested in aggressive or other behavior that would have put the prison authorities on notice because unlike Bellevue, which provided continuous observation, the Supreme Court Psychiatric Clinic operated on an out-patient basis. Finally, Justice Melia accorded no weight to the Matteawan reports rendered after Suggs' commitment by Justice Gold, which substantially corroborated the findings of Drs. Lubin and Kadar. 124 As stated in Townsend v. Sain, supra, 372 U.S. at 316, 83 S.Ct. at 759 (citations omitted): 125 This Court has consistently held that state factual determinations not fairly supported by the record cannot be conclusive of federal rights. . . . Where the fundamental liberties of the person are claimed to have been infringed, we carefully scrutinize the state-court record. 126 We have before us just such a case. 127
128 Beyond the lack of evidence sufficient to support the state court findings, several material facts were not adequately developed at the state hearing. Therefore, under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(3) Judge Duffy was entitled to reconsider the issue of competency. The suicide attempt at the Brooklyn House of Detention, the apparent suicide note and the correction officers' observation as reported in their records were not before the state court. These events were highly relevant since they occurred after Dr. Messinger's report of July 23, 1968, and prior to the pleas before Justice Nunez in early September, and since they directly reflected upon Suggs' mental condition, his judgment and his rationality. 56 In addition, the state court was not aware of Suggs' Matteawan file which contained his early medical history from Rockland State Hospital. These records shed light on the developmental aspects of Suggs' mental condition, revealing the complexity and depth of Suggs' emotional problems. 129 Moreover, no psychiatrist at the state hearing had sufficient information to give an accurate opinion of Suggs' competence on the date of the pleas in question. However, Dr. Kinzel, at the federal hearing, could and did focus on appellee's mental state as of September 13, 1968. With the aid of all prior institutional and medical records, most of which had never been seen by the other doctors, Dr. Kinzel clarified an aspect of the plea colloquy which apparently had troubled Justice Melia. He explained that appellee's lucid description of the details of his crimes did not necessarily indicate competency because psychotics commonly can account for their conduct without comprehending its significance. Justice Melia, without the guidance of psychiatric testimony on this point, had relied heavily on Suggs' descriptions of the crimes in concluding that Suggs was competent. But the United States Supreme Court has explained that 130 it is not enough . . . that the defendant (is) oriented to time and place and (has) some recollection of events, . . . the test must be whether he has sufficient present ability to consult with his lawyer with a reasonable degree of rational understanding and whether he has a rational as well as factual understanding of the proceedings against him. 57 131 Dusky v. United States, 362 U.S. 402, 402, 80 S.Ct. 788, 789, 4 L.Ed.2d 824 (1960). 132 Finally, after having been given an opportunity to review the Legal Aid files in the federal hearing, Mr. Tucker offered additional, important information. He testified that Suggs had exhibited unusual behavior on the day of his plea when Suggs demanded to plead guilty, though he had previously consistently asserted his innocence. 133
134 Considering the record as a whole and the important evidence unavailable to the state court, it cannot be said that Judge Duffy abused his discretion. We think that under §§ 2254(d)(3) and (d)(8) he was entitled to hold a separate hearing. That Judge Duffy could have held the hearing in the first instance, see note 54 supra, fortifies our view that his independent examination of the evidence was proper. 58 B. Waiver and Ratification at the June Sentencing 135 The questions we did not reach on the former appeal but discussed by Judge Duffy below in his earlier opinion, 390 F.Supp. 383 (S.D.N.Y.1975), are now unavoidably before this court. The first question is whether, for purposes of federal habeas corpus relief, Suggs waived his claim of incompetency at the time of the pleas by not adequately asserting it at the June 6, 1969, sentencing proceeding. The second is whether he ratified the previous pleas of guilty, accepted after a Boykin v. Alabama 59 colloquy conducted while Suggs was incompetent, by not withdrawing his pleas when given the opportunity by the sentencing court. That Suggs neither waived nor ratified could be inferred from his sentencing statement, made to Justice Schweitzer: Judge, at that time I wasn't capable of understanding the case. The fact is, however, that subsequently the sentencing court gave him the opportunity to withdraw his guilty pleas and with counsel present he did not do so. See II, G, supra. 136 1. Waiver. 137 The State relies upon Wainwright v. Sykes, supra, and Fay v. Noia,372 U.S. 391, 439, 83 S.Ct. 822, 9 L.Ed.2d 837 (1963), for the proposition that because Suggs did not, at the sentencing proceeding, adequately assert 60 the claim that he was incompetent at the time he pleaded guilty, he is precluded from later so asserting in a habeas corpus proceeding. Thus, the State argues, Judge Duffy erred in even considering the competency issue. While this argument has initial appeal, careful scrutiny reveals its deficiencies on the facts of this case. 138 Suggs has claimed throughout these habeas proceedings that he was denied due process by the sentencing court's failure to inquire into the voluntariness of his guilty pleas, as required by Boykin v. Alabama, supra, in light of Justice Gold's finding that Suggs was incompetent at the time of his pleas before Justice Nunez. To evaluate the validity of the sentencing proceeding, a secondary inquiry into Suggs' competency at plea is necessary, since this was the only time at which a Boykin colloquy occurred. Pate v. Robinson, supra, and McCarthy v. United States, supra, teach us that a guilty plea made while a defendant is incompetent violates due process and is therefore void. It logically follows that any Boykin discussion occurring while a defendant is incompetent is also a nullity. Thus, if Suggs had been competent at plea, there would have been no need to conduct a Boykin colloquy at sentencing; for Suggs would have been informed of his Boykin rights at a time when he could have understood and intelligently waived them. Conversely, a determination of incompetency would entitle Suggs to a Boykin colloquy at the time of sentencing, unless his failure to withdraw his guilty plea after informing the court that he might have been incompetent on September 13, 1968, constituted a waiver of this right. 139 Boykin v. Alabama, supra, imposes an affirmative duty on the trial judge to conduct, sua sponte, an on the record examination of the accused to ascertain that he fully understands the consequences of a guilty plea: (A) waiver of (the) . . . important federal rights (protected by Boykin will not be presumed) from a silent record. 395 U.S. at 243, 89 S.Ct. at 1712 (footnote omitted). See 1 C. Wright, Federal Practice and Procedure § 172, at 365, supp. at 107 (1969 & 1976 Supp.). Thus, a defendant cannot waive his right to attack a conviction rendered without the Boykin safeguards simply because he did not inform the trial judge of the judge's failure to discharge his duties at the time the error was committed. 61 The accused does not bear the burden of insuring that his plea is voluntary; that onus rests on the court. 140 Applying these principles to the facts at hand is a relatively simple matter. Because of the peculiar facts of this case, the sentencing court was obligated to inquire into Suggs' competency at plea to determine the necessity of conducting a second Boykin colloquy. Suggs had no obligation to apprise Justice Schweitzer of the court's responsibility to comply with Boykin's dictates. It is undisputed that Suggs could have successfully withdrawn his prior pleas on the ground of incompetence. However, we cannot accept the proposition that his omission to do so somehow nullified his ability later to contest a different constitutional deprivation in a different proceeding. 62 Such a conclusion would lead to the nonsensical result that, while a defendant ordinarily does not have to raise a Boykin error at the time of its commission (here, at the sentencing proceeding) if an evaluation of this claim subsequently reveals the need to consider another constitutional deprivation made at an earlier time (here, conducting plea proceedings while Suggs was incompetent), the defendant's failure to assert the related secondary error at a time when he was not required to apprise the court of the primary Boykin claim would result in a forfeiture of his right to assert both errors. Suggs' incompetence at the time he pleaded was of no consequence to him until Justice Schweitzer failed to conduct a Boykin colloquy. Because Suggs was not then obligated to request a colloquy in order to seek habeas relief in the future, it is manifest that he was not required to assert any connected underlying claims of error until he timely raised the Boykin issue. 141 Subsequent to the sentencing proceeding, Suggs presented his Boykin claim to the state courts without success. 63 In rejecting this claim, Justice Sandifer did not rely on any failure on Suggs' part to raise the Boykin issue at an appropriate time under New York law. Having exhausted his state remedies, he was entitled to pursue the issue in the federal habeas proceeding before Judge Duffy. See Allen v. County Court, No. 77-2059, 568 F.2d 998, 1001-1004 (2d Cir. 1977). Therefore Estelle v. Williams, 425 U.S. 501, 96 S.Ct. 1691, 48 L.Ed.2d 126 (1976), Francis v. Henderson, 425 U.S. 536, 96 S.Ct. 1708, 48 L.Ed.2d 149 (1976), and Wainwright v. Sykes, supra, are inapposite. At no time did Suggs fail to raise the Boykin issue when required to do so by either state or federal law. Fay v. Noia, supra, to the extent, if any, that it survives Wainwright, see Cover & Aleinikoff, Dialectical Federalism: Habeas Corpus and the Court, 86 Yale L.J. 1035, 1069-77, 1100-02 (1977), certainly does not add weight to the State's contention of waiver. Here there was no bypass of state proceedings, deliberate or otherwise. 142 Nor do we find convincing the argument that because the Boykin colloquynormally occurs at plea proceedings, Justice Schweitzer was unaware of the need to conduct a second Boykin colloquy without Suggs' informing him of his claims of incompetence and of concomitant invalid pleas before Justice Nunez. Suggs told the court that he felt he had been incompetent. Moreover, Justice Schweitzer had the record before him. It revealed not only Justice Nunez' order committing Suggs to Bellevue because, to paraphrase Justice Nunez, something was wrong with Suggs, but also Justice Gold's determination of incompetency based on the examination ordered by Justice Nunez. This record certainly should have alerted Justice Schweitzer to his duty to determine the voluntariness of the pleas. Cf. Saddler v. United States, supra, 531 F.2d at 87 (evidence of mental incompetency presented to the sentencing court but not before the court at plea sufficient flurry of warning flags to alert the sentencing judge to the possibility that defendant may have been incompetent to plead, thus requiring a mental examination and a hearing on competency). 143 2. Ratification. 144 The argument that Suggs ratified his previous void pleas by failing to withdraw them at the sentencing proceeding stands on no higher footing than the State's waiver claim. Boykin v. Alabama, supra, establishes that a trial judge may not accept a guilty plea without an affirmative showing (on the record) that it was intelligent and voluntary. 395 U.S. at 242, 89 S.Ct. at 1711. And United States ex rel. Dunn v. Casscles, supra, mandates an inquiry into the factual basis underlying the plea. Here, the sentencing minutes are devoid of any inquiry into either the voluntariness or the factual basis of Suggs' earlier pleas; the only colloquy at sentence focused on the nonwithdrawal of the previous void plea. Suggs was not, therefore, adequately informed of the alternative courses of action open to him at a time when he was competent. North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25, 31, 91 S.Ct. 160, 27 L.Ed.2d 162 (1970) (citing, inter alia, Boykin v. Alabama, supra ). Cf. United States v. Journet, 544 F.2d 633, 636 (2d Cir. 1976) (federal requirements under Rule 11, strictly enforced on direct criminal appeal); but cf. Del Vecchio v. United States, 556 F.2d 106, 110-11 (2d Cir. 1977) (defendant must show prejudice affecting fairness of proceedings or voluntariness of the plea to succeed in a collateral attack based on a Rule 11 violation); Kloner v. United States, 535 F.2d 730, 733-34 (2d Cir.) (not every right waived must be enumerated pursuant to Rule 11), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 942, 97 S.Ct. 361, 50 L.Ed.2d 312 (1976). 145 The State argues, however, that by failing to withdraw his invalid pleas at sentencing, Suggs ratified them at a time when he was competent, 64 and that the inquiry conducted by Justice Nunez was accordingly revivified at this later time. We disagree. If Suggs did not have the capacity to stand trial or to plead guilty 65 on September 13, 1968, he hardly could have then comprehended the waiver of his Boykin -protected constitutional rights to a trial by a jury of his peers, to confrontation of witnesses, and to a privilege against compulsory self-incrimination, 395 U.S. at 243, 89 S.Ct. 1709. Thus, there was no prior voluntary and intelligent waiver of these rights which Suggs ratified at the sentencing proceeding. Because of appellee's incompetence, it is as if the Boykin colloquy before Justice Nunez never occurred. See McCarthy v. United States, supra; Pate v. Robinson, supra. Accordingly, there was never a plea of guilty when Suggs was (a) competent and (b) informed of his Boykin rights. Judge Duffy well stated our view: 146 (S)hould the trial court . . . wish to provide a newly-competent defendant an opportunity to ratify his earlier (void) plea, a full and complete inquiry must be made by the court on that later occasion to determine the voluntariness of that ratification, the voluntariness of the plea itself, and further inquiry must once again be made of the now-competent defendant as to whether there is a proper factual basis for the plea. 147 390 F.Supp. at 389. C. Future State Proceedings 148 We endorse Judge Duffy's suggestion, 430 F.Supp. at 884, that, in view of certain paranoidal letters he received from Suggs in March of 1977, appellee be re-examined for competency before repleading. See note 52 supra. If Suggs is found to be incompetent, as appears likely given his longstanding mental illness, now possibly exacerbated by almost ten years behind bars, then the state mental health authorities are, of course, authorized to take whatever measures are appropriate under Article 730 of the Criminal Procedure Law or Article 31 of the Mental Hygiene Law. 149 Judgment affirmed.