Document: 420 U.S. 283 95 S.Ct. 886 43 L.Ed.2d 196 Louis J. LEFKOWITZ, Attorney General of New York, Petitioner,v.Leon NEWSOME. No. 73—1627. Argued Dec. 11, 1974. Decided Feb. 19, 1975. Syllabus When state law permits a defendant to plead guilty without forfeiting his right judicial review specified constitutional issues, such as the lawfulness search or voluntariness confession, is not foreclosed from pursuing those claims in federal habeas corpus proceeding. Pp. 288-293. (a) Thus, here where York statute permitted an appeal adverse decision on motion suppress evidence allegedly obtained result unlawful and seizure though conviction was based plea, respondent, who had been convicted court plea drug charge unsuccessfully presented courts direct claim that seized incident arrest should have suppressed, precluded raising 288-292. (b) To hold otherwise only would deprive respondent forum despite having satisfied all requirements for invoking jurisdiction, but also frustrate State's policy providing post-guilty appellate pretrial motions suppress. P. 292-293. 492 F.2d 1166, affirmed. Robert S. Hammer, City, petitioner. Stanley Neustadter, respondent. Mr. Justice STEWART delivered opinion Court. 1 The Leon Newsome arrested pursuant N.Y.Penal Law § 240.35(6), McKinney's Consol.Laws, c. 40, loitering lobby City Housing Authority apartment building. A conducted at time produced small quantity heroin related narcotics paraphernalia. Consequently, addition offense loitering, he charged with possession dangerous drug, fourth degree, 220.05 (now codified, modified, 220.03), criminally possessing hypodermic instrument. 220.45. 2 Criminal Court nonjury trial hearing Newsome's arrest. argued arresting officer did probable cause arrest, there insufficient support conviction, unconstitutional therefore could serve basis either lawful rejected these arguments, found denied 3 One month later, date scheduled charges, withdrew prior pleas pleaded lesser attempted drugs. 110. He immediately sentenced 90 days' imprisonment attempted-possession received unconditional release conviction. 4 At sentencing proceeding indicated intention both denial drugs paraphernalia Appeal authorized by N.Y.Code Crim.Proc. 813—c recodified N.Y.Crim.Proc.Law §§ 710.20(1), 710.70(2)), 11—A, which provided order denying alleged 'may be reviewed judgment notwithstanding fact predicated upon guilty.'1 5 On Appellate Term Supreme Court, reversed defective information. Because held however, upheld sought further leave Appeals denied. This petition writ certiorari. v. 405 908, 92 970, 30 779. 6 then filed District Eastern York. reiterated unconstitutional, invalid, suppressed. Prior Court's merits petition,2 declared York's unconstitutional. People Berck, 32 N.Y.2d 567, 300 N.E.2d 411. In light Berck decision, granted application corpus. 7 petitioner, intervene proceeding, appealed. Second Circuit affirmed United States ex rel. Malcolm, adhering its earlier rulings has utilized procedures may pursue although guilty. Id., 1169—1171. violated due process because it failed specify adequately conduct proscribed provide sufficiently clear guidance police, prosecutors, so they enforce manner consistent requirement arrests cuase. 1171—1174. Accordingly, searched violation ground substituted mere suspicion constitutionally invalid. concluded granting 1174—1175. 8 Appeals' waived file pleading constitutionality statute. conflict between present case Ninth Circuit,3 we certiorari limited question defendant's challenging confession presenting other when State provides issues after plea. 417 967, 94 3170, 41 1138.4 9 * contending this petitioner relies primarily decisions guiltyplea trilogy Brady States, 397 742, 1463, 25 747; McMann Richardson, 759, 1441, 763, Parker North Carolina, 790, 1458, 785, our Tollett Henderson, 411 258, 93 1602, 36 235. announced general rule intelligently voluntarily made, bars later assertion challenges proceedings. principle reaffirmed supra, 267, S.Ct., 1608: 'When criminal solemnly admitted open charged, thereafter raise independent relating deprivation rights occurred entry plea.' 10 But suggested exception might proper decides permit ruling See U.S., 766, n. 770 13, 1446, 1448.5 justification lies special nature like Newsome. 11 most must go preserve opportunity admissibility various pieces evidence, confession. chooses rather than effect deliberately refuses first instance. 768, 1447. Once bypass orderly procedure litigating take benefits, if any, guilty, acquires legitimate expectation finality thereby obtained. Cf. Fay Noia, 372 391, 438, 83 822, 848, 837. It sense, therefore, ordinarily 'a represents break chain events preceded process.' 1608. 12 chosen treat 'break events' regard certain types raised For whose basic defense consists one already lost claim, no practical difference terms going neither event does assert any under available full range claims. As claims, 'break' usual adjudicating issues. operates simply can litigated necessity through effort conducting trial, foreordained entered understanding State, defendant, will foreclose violations.6 13 sum, termed Procedure 'guilty plea,' same label given defendants cases Newsom's legal consequences quite different traditional guilty-plea cases. Far precluding carried guarantee continue him. respect meaningful trial.7 14 entirely expectations surrounding completely flowing it, holding '(t)he focus inquiry advice (of counsel) existence antecedent infirmity,' 266, 1608, are inapposite. prerequisites jurisdiction courts.8 less entitled raises timely fashion, accordance procedure, pursues levels review.9 II 15 Denying him postguilty 16 Many recognize cannot prevail unless succeed suppressing police involuntary Such generally prevailing often insist sole purpose preserving their illegal seizures confessions potential vindication collateral Recognizing unnecessary waste energy consumed trials, discourage them creating obtain imposing burden trial. 17 deny relief position make trap unwary.10 hand, safe predict knew again dissuaded instead solely ultimate litigate eviscerate commendable efforts relieve problem congested calendars diminish guaranteed Constitution.11 18 19 ordered. 20 Judgment 21 WHITE, whom THE CHIEF JUSTICE REHNQUIST join, dissenting. 22 I believe set aside guilty—a solemn; counseled admission guilty—even assuming previously victim measure up standards, respectfully dissent. 23 statute, below establish 'he custody Constitution laws treaties States.' 28 U.S.C. 2254(a). common ground, Federal itself entitle showing search, even show prosecution planned use fruits against trial.1 Blackledge Perry, 21, 2098, 40 628 (1974); 235 (1973); 747 (1970); 763 785 (1970). Tollett, said: 24 'We thus reaffirm recognized trilogy: process. attack voluntary intelligent character counsel within standards forth McMann.' (Emphasis added.) 'principle' substantive limiting grounds guilt. not, majority assumes, ante, 289, disentitling Fourth Amendment properly 'preserved' law. If were come out differently: proceedings; points out, 290 6, purposes 'deliberately bypassed'; nor bypassed' coerced-confession grand-jury-discrimination involved.2 Indeed, entire rests erroneous notion refused hear 'bypassed' fact, proposition defendants' guilt cases, consequent absolute incarcerate them, established guilty.3 26 case, whether, deprivations preceding established, creates none existed otherwise. almost answers itself. More importantly, answered supra. 27 Parker, alleging, inter alia, unconstitutionally coerced subsequent voluntary. appeal, Carolina clearly accepted Parker's involuntary, but-for N.C.App. 27, 32, 162 S.E.2d 526, 529. concluded, product it. feel compelled—by gave standards—to give similar right. Instead, inadmissible contrary belief, 'to disavow committed charged.' 797, 1462.4 Like loses suppression pleads assume, reading (in denied). However, preclude do likewise. Similarly, here, reliable method known law—his solemn guilt, made court. unintelligent. nonetheless previous alter law.5 contends, since 'guarantee' still possibly said Moreover, asserts involved plea' name only, something else reality 'different expectations' 'legal consequences' There two things wrong contentions. 29 First, contentions assume notions waiver. words, assumes past pleas' violations deemed 'waived' rights. assumption finds some language waiver ingredient. event, squarely conclusively rationale We there: 'If issue cast 'waiver,' undoubtedly correct concluding here.' 1607, 31 Nonetheless, reversed. Under Tollett's interpretation trilogy, itself, principles setting Labels aside, establishing factual plaintly qualifies.6 Second, intended create power part able courts, courts. absolutely reason suppose and, intended, acting plainly beyond power. may, course, matter standards. do, state-law But, Congress decide whether gives circumstances. circumstances' flow 'expectations' about what occur following matters decided Legislature surely finally Circuit. followed context court, once system read opinion, incontestable legitimately harbor contrary.7 33 theory, waive applicable says waive; federal, us, Legislature, say illustrate, passing achieve substantially permitting appeals denials judge certified likely determinative outcome Suppose avails himself opportunity, highest subsequently Suppose, finally, passed second circumstances just described directly bring attacking search—the expressly stating would, obviously, whatever, plain legislate far concerned, hypothesized functional equivalent construed effectuated majority. that, real follow precede 34 Finally, argues interfere avoiding trials pleas. seeking further, appeared precisely contrary. Obviously, believes served appeals. way benefit, arguing strenuously way. 35 POWELL, reverse reasons my concurring Schneckloth Bustamonte, 412 218, 250, 2041, 854 (1973). more inappropriate prisoner's claim. prisoner counsel, innocence. Rather, reviewable uncommon allows 37 Yet today holds seek relief. distorts recognition historic honored corpus, indeed justification, added assurance free society innocent person suffer liberty. great designed means freeing persons confessed comporting 38 Apart views inappropriateness duly adjudicated agree WHITE's dissent, p. 294. invoked Section directed 813—g (recodified 710.20(3), confessions. 766 763. now identification testimony claimed tainted improper identifications. 710.20(5), 710.70(2). initially dismissed Newsome, released bail pending final disposition 'in custody' required 2241. appealed dismissal, Hensley Municipal 345, 1571, 294, remanded merits. California, Cal.Penal Code 1538.5(m). Unlike Circuit, divided vote petition. Mann Smith, 488 245, 247. Certiorari Question Lefkowitz' petition: 'Does motion, grounds, offered trial?' 1138. Since Richardson effective statutory scheme challenge improperly reserved before us. 1448. That express reservation unquestionably belies argument advanced dissenting White, post, 297-298, us together McMann. concedes ultimately includes Sibron 392 88 1889, 917, state-court appellant's granted, appellant pursued 813—c. id., 45 2, 1893. sufficient (that) it' prevent fortiori rationally resort procedural adequate bar deliberate procedures. 428—431, 843—845, easily 'guilty,' intends desire impose 'not guilty' stipulate introduce prove Upon inevitable stipulation, remedies. And presumably, 'solemn guilt,' concede labeled 'guilty' stipulation facts demonstrating recitation availability depends reality, infatuation labels. meaning His States. 2241(c)(3). exhaustion 2254 appeal. Francisco Gathright, 419 59, 257, 42 226. supra applicant bypassed reviewing 848. entertained bypass, discretion entitled. 439, 849. seem necessarily procedures, otherwise, merits, determine applicant's repeatedly E.g., Rogers Warden, 381 209; Molloy Follette, 391 231. Uniform Rules broader currently post-guilty-plea which, dispositive case. Rule 444(d). grant entitlement, entitlement exercise supervisory powers over administration justice system. Sepe, 474 784 (CA5), aff'd en banc, 486 1044 Cox, 464 937 (CA6 1972); Mizell, 97 (CA5 1973), cited. see Doyle, 348 715, 719 (CA2), cert. denied, 382 843, 86 89, 84 (1965). involving Jackson Denno, 378 368, 1774, 908 (1964), believed jury regardless. ignorance underlying grand jury. true never attacks accuracy finding Linkletter Walker, 618, 85 1731, 601 system, reversal perfectly is, unlike undercut admitted. short answer applies well rejected. 1411, 1973). point, deterrent exclusionary furthered lowest possible cost By seriously detract (a policeman invade someone's privacy hardly rely mistaken guilty) avoid unnecessarily 'within competence attorneys representing cases,' 797—798, 1462, warrant vacation Sixth grounds. 917 (1968), heard created relevant trilogy; addressed violation. attorney called, government witnesses testify facts, exhibits, among illegally evidence; functionally premise correct; conclusion not. place, correct, apply equally establish, infirm violations, convictions uncontested are. offers why distinction ignored ignores purposes. evidence. latter evidence: always acquit, unpersuaded, find contributed verdict. discussion differences F.2d, 99—101 (guilty appealable), Mendoza, 491 534, 536—538 1974) (conviction stipulated appealable). 944—945. possibility law, e.g., 209 (1967), 231 affirmatively misled respondent's lawyer into believing relitigation afer best course geen those, including reliance replead. 101. Santobello 404 495, 427 (1971).

Category: 0