Document: 395 U.S. 238 89 S.Ct. 1709 23 L.Ed.2d 274 Edward BOYKIN, Jr., Petitioner,v.State of ALABAMA. No. 642. Argued March 4, 1969. Decided June 2, E. Graham Gibbons, Mobile, Ala., for petitioner. David W. Clark, Montgomery, respondent. Mr. Justice DOUGLAS delivered the opinion Court. 1 In spring 1966, within period a fortnight, series armed robberies occurred in Alabama. The victims, each case, were local shopkeepers open at night who forced by gunman to hand over money. While robbing one grocery store, assailant fired his gun once, sending bullet through door into ceiling. A few days earlier drugstore, robber had allowed discharge such way that bullet, on ricochet from floor, struck customer leg. Shortly thereafter, grand jury returned five indictments against petitioner, 27-year-old Negro, commonlaw robbery—an offense punishable Alabama death. 2 Before matter came trial, court determined petitioner was indigent and appointed counsel1 represent him. Three later, arraignment, pleaded guilty all indictments. So far as record shows, judge asked no questions concerning plea, did not address court. 3 Trial strategy may course make plea seem desirable course. But is wholly silent point throws light it. 4 l abama provides when defendant pleads guilty, 'the must cause punishment be jury' (except where it required fixed court) 'cause witnesses examined, ascertain character offense.' Ala.Code, Tit. 15, § 277 (1958). present case trial dimension held, prosecution presenting its largely eyewitness testimony. Although counsel engaged cursory cross-examination, neither testified himself nor presented testimony background. There nothing indicate he prior criminal record. 5 instructing jury, stressed cases robbery,2 defined felonious taking money * another will violence or putting him fear (carrying) ten years minimum penitentiary supreme penalty death electrocution.' upon deliberation, found sentenced severally die 6 Taking an automatic appeal Supreme Court, argued sentence common-law robbery cruel unusual meaning Federal Constitution, suggestion which unanimously rejected. 281 Ala. 659, 207 So.2d 412. On their own motion, however, four seven justices discussed constitutionality process accepted petitioner's plea. From order affirming court, three dissented ground inadequate show intelligently knowingly guilty. fourth member concurred separately, conceding 'a should accept unless has voluntarily entered defendant,' but refusing '(f)or aught appearing' 'to presume failed do duty.' 662, 663, So.2d, 414, 415. We granted certiorari. 393 820, 200, 21 93. 7 Respondent does suggest we lack jurisdiction review voluntary because raise federal question below state pass it.3 raised oral argument conclude properly presented. very statute. (Ala. Code, 382 (10) (1958)) capital also requires reviewing comb 'any error prejudicial appellant, even though called our attention brief counsel.' Lee v. State, 265 623, 630, 93 757, 763. statute 'is only provision under Plain Error doctrine are aware appellate review.' Douglas 42 Ala.App. 314, 331, n. 6, 163 477, 494, 6. words Court: 8 'Perhaps well note statute, consider any seriously rights appellant reverse thereon, lawful objection exception made thereto. (Citations omitted.) Our limited matters brought Duncan 278 145, 157, 176 840, 851. 9 It error, plain o face record, without affirmative showing intelligent voluntary. That procedure, before considered explicitly majority us review. 10 more than confession admits accused various acts; itself conviction; remains give judgment determine punishment. See Kercheval United States, 220, 223, 47 582, 583, 71 L.Ed. 1009. Admissibility based 'reliable determination voluntariness issue satisfies constitutional defendant.' Jackson Denno, 378 368, 387, 84 1774, 1786, 12 908. requirement spread prerequisites valid waiver innovation. Carnley Cochran, 369 506, 516, 82 884, 890, 70, dealt with problem right counsel, Sixth Amendment right. held: 'Presuming impermissible. show, there allegation evidence offered understandingly rejected offer. Anything less waiver.' 11 think same standard applied determining whether made. For, have said, admission conduct; conviction.4 Ignorance, incomprehension, coercion, terror, inducements, subtle blatant threats might perfect cover-up unconstitutionality. effective proceeding governed standards. Alabama, 380 415, 422, 85 1074, 1078, 13 934. Several involved takes place trial. First, privilege compulsory self-incrimination guaranteed Fifth applicable States reason Fourteenth. Malloy Hogan, 1, 1489, 653. Second, jury. Louisiana, 391 88 1444, 20 491. Third, confront one's accusers. Pointer Texas, 400, 1065, 923. cannot these important record.5 What stake facing imprs onment demands utmost solicitude courts capable canvassing sure full understanding what connotes consequence. When discharges function, leaves adequate later sought6 (Garner 368 173, 248, 256, 207; Specht Patterson, 386 605, 610, 87 1209, 1212, 18 326), forestalls spin-off collateral proceedings seek probe murky memories.7 14 dissenting Court stated law accurately they concluded reversible 'because disclose pleas guilty.' 15 Reversed. 16 HARLAN, whom BLACK joins, dissenting. 17 today holds Boykin denied due law, convictions reversed outright, solely (is) Ante, 241. thus effect fastens rigid prophylactic requirements Rule Rules Criminal Procedure. so circumstances recently held application unnecessary courts. Halliday 394 831, 1498, (1969). Moreover, this behest never time alleged involuntary knowledge consequences. I possibly subscribe bizarre result. I. Boykin, separate charges robbery. He indigent, July attorney Petitioner arraigned later. At time, presence attorney, inquiries arraigning confirm knowingly.1 19 immediately after acceptance Instead, pursuant ordered 'witnesses ea mined, offense,' would then fix sentence. 14, 415 (1958); 277. some two months During period, attempt withdraw examined. heard elements announce Again, effort claim involuntarily fact, plea.2 petition asserted coerced ignorance II. Against background, Due Process Clause Fourteenth outright reversal conviction. This result unprecedented. past holdings habeas corpus makes sufficiently credible allegations entitled hearing truth those allegations. See, e.g., Waley Johnston, 316 101, 62 964, 86 1302 (1942); cf. Machibroda 487, 510, 473 (1962). These if equally convincing certiorari direct review, affirmance vacated remanded voluntariness. Cf. 393—394, 1789—1790, 908 (1964). However, been noted, actual involuntariness. 22 Court's therefore predicated entirely failure 'adequate' holding reversal, quotes copiously McCarthy 459, 1166, 418 (1969), Term district fails comply every respect procedure accepting prescribed Procedure, set aside permitted replead, regardless lower-court findings fact omits mention decision 'solely construction 11,' disavowed reliance Constitution. Id., 464, S.Ct., 1169. Thus can provide support whatever today's edict. III. out opinion, now being procedures substantially process. If basis Boykin's conviction reversed, disposition plainly keeping sequel McCarthy, decided last month. For 'in view large number constitutionally obtained compliance 11, decline apply retroactively.' 833, 1499. quite evidently Halliday's 'constitutionally valid,' affirmed 1954 explicit inquiry made, 11. justification, noted lower declared that: 24 '(A) whose still resort appropriate post-conviction remedies attack plea's Thus, remedy correct defects conviction.' 25 seems elementary least demanding Boykin. Yet despite omission judicial initiated revealed actually other hand, exactly omission, too 'may voluntariness' short, find utterly impossible square done. 26 hold simply 'inadequacy' pertaining Further, vacate remand state-court assumed sake involuntary, decide, claim. Hence, arguments relating entitle relief.3 Hamilton 52, 114; §§ 318 (1)—(12) (Supp.1967). derived common possible penalties unlike Cardinale 437, 1162, 398, perhaps unacquainted issue. already stated, (a majority) implications law. 'A serves stipulation proof need advanced *. supplies both verdict, ending controversy.' Woodard 552, 558, 171 462, 469. regime Procedure governs duty 418. said case: enters simultaneously waives several rights, including self-incrimination, Clause, 'an intentional relinquishment abandonment known privilege.' Johnson Zerbst, 304 458, 58 1019, 1461 (1938). Consequently, defendant's knowing, violation void. formal charge, truly possesses relation facts.' 466, 1171. Among requiring plead appear affirmatively Colorado, Colo.Rev.Stat.Ann. 39—7—8; Illinois, Ill.Rev.Stat., c. 38, 113—1 114—14; Missouri. State Blaylock, Mo., S.W.2d 364 (1965); New York, People Seaton, N.Y.2d 404, 407, 280 N.Y.S.2d 370, 371, 227 N.E.2d 294, 295 (1967); Wisconsin, ex rel. Burnett Burke, Wis.2d 486, 126 N.W.2d 91, 96 (1964); Washington, Woods Rhay, 68 Wash.2d 601, 414 P.2d 604 (1966). insulated attack, best advised conduct examination include, inter alia, satisfy understands nature charges, acts sufficient constitute offenses charged permissible range sentences.' Commonwealth West Rundle, 428 Pa. 102, 105—106, 237 A.2d 196, 197—198 (1968). states 'This day District Attorney proper person Evan Austill, indictment charging Robbery Appendix 4. am willing majority's question. advances additional arguments: imposition 'cruel punishment' Amendment; permit inflict 'standards' guide discretion amounts denial reach issues done so.

Category: 0