Document: 406 U.S. 250 92 S.Ct. 1551 32 L.Ed.2d 45 Charles O. DUKES, Petitioner,v.WARDEN, CONNECTICUT STATE PRISON. No. 71—5172. Argued March 21, 1972. Decided May 15, Rehearing Denied June 19, See 407 934, 2464. Syllabus Petitioner's claim that his guilty plea was not voluntarily and intelligently made because of an alleged conflict interest on the part counsel has no merit, is therefore a reason for vacating plea. Pp. 251—257. 161 Conn. 337, 288 A.2d 58, affirmed. James A. Wade, Hartford, Conn., petitioner; John D. LaBelle, Manchester, respondent. Mr. Justice BRENNAN delivered opinion Court. 1 On 16, 1967, petitioner, advice counsel, pleaded in Superior Court Hartford County, Connecticut, to charges narcotics violation larceny goods. before being sentenced, he informed court had retained new desired withdraw stand trial. The refused permit him sentenced term five 10 years charge two charge. Connecticut Supreme affirmed this conviction direct appeal challenging voluntariness plea, State v. Dukes, 157 498, 255 614 (1969), United States District denied application federal habeas corpus relief sought Civil Action 13029. He then brought state action attacked under Federal Constitution ground raised either or relief. arising from lawyer's representation girls with whom petitioner been charged unrelated false pretenses case known judge who rendered involuntary unintelligent. After full hearing, affirmed, 58 (1971). stated that, although petition voluntary intelligent several grounds, '(o)n appeal, however, (petitioner) asserted essence only effective assistance which . ..' at 339, at, 60. We granted certiorari. 404 937, 293, 30 249 2 were represented by Zaccagnino firm Zaccagnino, Linardos, & Delaney case, another lawyer, when defend case. There also pending against New Haven Fairfield counties. faced possibility prosecution as second offender, having convicted 1961 breaking entry assault. 3 Petitioner, accompanied appeared 9, plead charges. lawyer advised if bargain could be negotiated whereby State's Attorney would consolidate all outstanding out County agree prosecute but recommend sentence charge, concurrent sentences other Under Conn.Gen. Stat.Rev. § 54—17a (1958) transferred disposition Attorneys counties consented When accept advice, asked relieved petitioner's counsel. request accepted continued trial next day so might try retain lawyer. As went corridor outside courtroom, police officers arrested still Petitioner attempted suicide station taken hospitalized days. Accordingly date postponed 16. 4 did engage 16 Delaney, partner engaged court. now showed bargain, negotiations, interrupted time while consulted petitioner. A terms urged 9 finally struck, withdrew notguilty entered attacks. misgivings expressed dissatisfaction week before, following occurred: 5 '(State's Attorney): record ought appear here today office Zaccagnino. I think inquire respect since there some indication day. 6 'The Court: Well now, want sure everything order here. Now want, here, are you fully satisfied services rendering you, Dukes? 7 Accused: Yes, sir. 8 You are. And know course, that—you course burden proving free go wish change your correct? do own will, 11 12 probable consequences it? 13 14 Very well, one induced this, influenced way other? doing will? 15 Yes. well then. will plea.' 17 set 2, sentencing But documents transferring arrived, presentence report completed, day, 1967. By coincidence, judge's calendar listed who, Zaccagnino's sentenced. That proceeding involve bargain. In urging leniency girls, statements putting blame girls' plight. These primary basis divided loyalty alleges said: 18 '(B)oth them came influence Dukes. how they get position come somebody like him, Your Honor pleases, creates problem cause whole situation. 19 'Both these left their homes, Dukes got involved. think, Honor, though, thing should good stead, result willingness cooperate Police capitulated into making both sides side can tell it refusal testify taking shortly removed society 20 represent proceedings complete surprised told obtained intended It appears cross-examination hearing learned about sentenced.1 Yet why changing lawyers, nor wanted pressed give reason, answered, 'At pleaded, just hospital, unconscious three days, didn't realize actually what pleading to.'2 His explanation wanting thought out-of-town better service: 'I rather have attorney town certain reasons case.' heard question imposed. attorney, despite collapse recommended, imposed, first offender's count count; precise agreed concerned unwillingness through vulnerable various counties: '(I)t matter normally ., situation enter sentences, if, fact, recommended Attorney; doesn't matters, make note record, feel later may back see matters it.'3 21 facts, concluded sustained said, 344—345, A.2d, 62: 22 'There nothing us indicate resulted ineffective fact render (Petitioner) does claim, nowhere indicated finding, inferred furtherance plan obtain more favorable consideration clients. Neither finding any disclose, claimed, received misleading led guilty. Moreover, specifically found knew representing defendants codefendant, never complained dual representation, lengthy conversation prior entering recalled completely, specific inquiry guilty, Delaney. err concluding (petitioner's) unintelligent interest.' 23 reasoning conclusion Since thus merit sole contention proceeding—that affected plea—that 'a Santobello York, 257, 267, 495, 501, 427 (1971) (Marshall, J., concurring dissenting). 24 Affirmed. 25 STEWART, concurring. 26 427, joined Marshall's separate 'where defendant presents government relied its disadvantage, vacated right regained least where motion vacate judgment.' Id., 267—268, S.Ct., 501—502. 27 If moves judgment states so, need shoulder further 'merit' time. Before judgment, courts show solicitude wishes undo waiver constitutional rights surround trial—perhaps most devastating possible our Constitution. Any requirement prove undoing confuse obvious difference between withdrawal challenge such collaterally, final clearly 28 believe problems presented Certiorari consider involuntarily unintelligently interest. This conflict-of-interest until proceeding, after pronounced. judgment. Rather, challenges sentence, presenting previously raised. 29 Thus, evaluated standards governing attack far different former standards, involuntariness attributable counsel's lacks merit. understanding join 31 MARSHALL, DOUGLAS joins, dissenting. dissent. sentencing, innocent, proceed confidence. claims, ample support guilty—and indeed pressured so—by lawyers devotedly interests. shold permitted 33 * 14, authorities Uniform Narcotic Drug Act receiving stolen From beginning, sharp over whether Two partners law retained, each handled occasions, tried convince They argued best hope secure agreement together, receive reasonable sentences. maintained innocent App. 39, 112, 119—120. 34 Although yet charges, called client surfaced dramatically immediately 'because happens slight my myself, it's financial, basically goes heart ...' Noting view advocate 'must cause' client, reiterate disagreement 'prejudice defendant.' reported 'either wants himself county confidence other.' 10, 17. majority concedes announced 'conflict' insistence Then addressed explain 'with local am afraid, going resentment. conversations, I'd opportunity hire don't (sic) knowledge Otherwise .. intend 18. spoke again, he, one, 'do man justice particular issue.' 19—20. 'at time.' scheduled morning. 35 Proceedings resume later, 16.1 conversations courthouse morning, 131—132, follow admittedly applying 'pressure' 140: pled larceny-receiving Prior pleas, 'fully (your lawyer) 24, 41. said was. satisfaction, was, short lived. 36 sentencing. wished secured Haven. lateness developments, conceded suspicion (might) take place maybe little forceful.' disputed present 'properly him,' once again 'doesn't me.' 28, 31. difficulty getting would, thought, justice. explained recuperating recent attempt, n. 1, supra, 'didn't to.' 32. 8, infra. contrary majority's description, voice, gave 37 Following prosecutor's statement opposing request, without inquiry, let say replied: flabbergasted really, expect puzzles me. guilty.' 33.2 receiving-stolen-property count, prosecutor recommended. plea—to gain consolidation thereby charges—was fulfilled. impossible. 30—33, 157. 38 noted, facts surrounding legal developed hearing,3 lack finds striking record. 39 details decision But, significantly, reveals gross Ancillary instant proceedings, young women conspiracy money pretenses. codefendant attorney. April 18, same weeks later. 40 remarks behalf women, 'under Dukes,' astray. pointed cooperation 'led downfall Dukes' 'capitulated (Dukes) (of guilty) society.'4 placed offenses committed saying 'the culpable instruments dupe girls.' 43—44, 68—71.5 prison terms. 41 short, lighter clients, denigrated clients weeks. Even absent showing improperly motivated, lends strong devoted II 42 Douglas recently reminded us, 43 'However important bargaining administration criminal justice, opinions established serious sobering occasion inasmuch constitutes fundamental jury trial, Duncan Louisiana, 391 145, 88 1444, 491, confront one's accusers, Pointer Texas, 380 400, 85 1065, 923, witnesses defense, Washington 388 87 1920, 1019, remain silent, Malloy Hogan, 378 84 1489, 653, proof beyond doubt, re Winship, 397 358, 90 1068, 368.' .u.S. 264, 500, (concurring opinion). 44 Boykin Alabama, 395 238, 243, 89 1709, 1712, 274 (1969). precondition 'right Jackson, 390 570, 581, 1209, 1216, 138 (1968). waive waivers quickly presumed, and, viewed 'utmost solicitude.' U.S., 1712. Our decisions, statutory, recognized consistent requirements enforcement, adequate safeguards exist meaning E.g., supra; Brady States, 742, 748, 1463, 1468, 747 (1970); McCarthy 394 459, 1166, 418 (1969); White Maryland, 373 59, 83 1050, 193 (1963); Machibroda 368 487, 82 510, 473 (1962); Walker Johnston, 312 275, 61 574, L.Ed. 830 (1941); Kercheval 220, 47 582, 71 1009 (1927). irrevocable defendant's even is, strictly speaking, 'voluntarily' entered. adhere 501 (opinion Marshall, dissenting, Brennan, Stewart, joined). 46 Such rule sensible waiver. pleas solicitude' simultaneous many rights; system favors assertion rights, inconsistent basic viewpoint Usually information insights, 'sober thoughts' pleas. Where itself pleading, door slammed shut formal reconsideration trap. Ordinarily, changes mind sufficient timely fashion deemed waived government's substantial harm, generally compromise '(I)n ordinary reliance suffer harm plea's withdrawal.' 268, 502 seeks contest original him. promptly held, period usually delay. held ordinarily, disappointed expectations. balance interests must favor vindication individual's rights. 48 tendered Protesting innocence, claimed satisfactory already admitted longstanding litigation. Properly loyal himself, ultimate forceful' Given things, view, justification rescinding 49 we limited bare minimally behind inarticulate claims. done than simply denying developed. subsequent shows, fears objective basis. (It irrelevant evidence clear exceeded earlier inadequate representation.6) below concluded, 50 'Obviously, derogatory (the attorney) highly improper. 'When engages given piece business entitled disposed manner, undivided upon looks champion." 345—346, 62—63 51 'improper' conduct gives graphic properly interests, main 52 decide deprived Fourteenth Amendment functioned 'involuntary.' conclude plausible constituted withdrawing plea.7 equate questions, suggesting analysis neither 'affected' unconstitutionally vacated. situations required apply much less rigorous standard point (1) questioned receiving, (2) conclusions, plausible, least. This, seems me, enough totally ignores demonstrates long-standing forceful securing 'highly improper' rightfully expects understand whose choice extraordinary account relationship throughout protested innocence: 53 '(Dukes) consistently me sale narcotics, reviewing evidence. So probably too forceful, sometimes you're trying impose knowing interest, Charlie winning battle clearing way, felony warrants able win all, not. talked innocent. At changed assume took meantime, basically, Court, insistent kept put down, it.' 120. 54 Of real significance satisfaction loyalties entered, undercuts premise entailed. Surely true where, asserts innocence pleading.8 55 allowed regain Here, certainly conflict. No wonder last words were: 56 expectations itself.9 mere disappointment cannot bar regaining 57 remand instructions replead information. 'Q. 2nd, weren't .? 'A. I'm wasn't that's forth on, quite day.' Brief, 162—163 (emphasis supplied). product after-effects attempt review question. issue events proved, dismissed, affirming appeal. benefits paying cost offenses. discloses custody, telephoned morning town. apparently expected courtroom 'take over' withdrawn. 150—151. Connecticut. express subject evidentiary development appropriate pursue corpus. nn. 7, vindicate position. meant 'capitulated' offense allegedly women. testified remember ever 122. thinking referring women's 'since 68 added). However, 'remarks concerning plaintiff codefendants, referred sentenced.' 341, Nevertheless, certified records sent involving those nolled February 1970. connection today's notes included deal ante, 253—254. Obviously, reporting role 'capitulating' pernicious observed 'improper repetition substance attorney.' 347, 63. (The similar observation report, record.) event, incorrect merely repeated prosecutor. 'became associated paraphernalia checks orders cash credentials furnished him.' 65. cry vivid pointedly argumentative (and petitioner's) suggests Ante, 254—455. clue possibly withhold information, it. factual rests single phrase testimony, burdens linguistic precision Justices Read context common sense, awkward phrasing refers 'when' made, subsequently 'told' them. apparent act betrayal 2. What clear, aware remarks, intimates restricted deciding 'voluntariness' theory. precedent suggested line papers focused approach, exclusively. Brief 22. formulation favored. relevant times action, representation. Ibid. below, reach decide. weakened physical hospitalization confused mind. explored 'temporary.' 149—150, 154. 'voluntarily made,' 46, gone See, supra. uncontradicted hospitalization, 40, themselves entitle thought,' Ours which, performed restored status quo ante. filed counts irrevocably dismissed vacate. When, cases, charges; hurt. 262.

Category: 0