Court Opinion

ID: 9426463
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-02 23:18:04.416199+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:23:01.103227
License: Public Domain

Mr. Justice Rehnquist,
with whom The Chief Justice joins, dissenting.
The Court’s opinion affirms a judgment which directs the release on federal habeas of a state prisoner who, on advice of counsel, pleaded guilty in the New York State courts 11 years ago to a charge of second-degree murder. The Court declares its agreement with petitioner’s contention that the test for reviewing the constitutional validity of a counseled plea of guilty-should be “the totality of the circumstances,” ante, at 644. But the Court’s holding can be justified only if the Constitution requires that “a ritualistic litany of the formal legal elements of an offense [be] read to the defendant,” ibid., a requirement which it purports to eschew.1 The Court accomplishes this result by imposing on state courts, as a constitutional requirement, a definition of “voluntariness” announced by this Court in McCarthy v. United States, 394 U. S. 459 (1969), in which the Court interpreted a provision of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. Yet that case has been held to have only prospective application even as to the federal courts. Holliday v. United States, 394 U. S. 831 (1969).
McCarthy extended the definition of voluntariness to include an “understanding of the essential elements of the crime charged, including the requirement of specific *653intent . . . 394 U. S., at 471. But prior to McCarthy, and to this Court’s decision of a related issue in Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U. S. 238 (1969), the generally accepted standard for a valid guilty plea in federal courts was set forth in Machibroda v. United States, 368 U. S. 487, 493 (1962), which in turn relied on Kercheval v. United States, 274 U. S. 220, 223 (1927). Though these were federal cases, certainly no more stringent a standard could be applied as a matter of constitutional law on federal habeas review of state convictions. The Court said in Machibroda:
“ 'Out of just consideration for persons accused of crime, courts are careful that a plea of guilty shall not be accepted unless made voluntarily after proper advice and with full understanding of the consequences.’ ” 368 U. S., at 493, quoting Kercheval, supra, at 223.
These cases thus set forth a three-pronged test: The plea of guilty must be made voluntarily, it must be made after proper advice, and it must be made with full understanding of the consequences. There can be no doubt that respondent entered his plea “with full understanding of the consequences” because the District Court expressly so found. Nor can there be any serious doubt that respondent’s plea was made “voluntarily” as that term is used in Machibroda and the previous eases upon which it relies.
There was no contention in the federal habeas court that respondent’s guilty plea was not “voluntary” in the normal sense of that word. There was no hint of physical or psychological coercion, and respondent was represented by not one but two admittedly capable defense attorneys. While McCarthy v. United States, supra, at 471, expands the notion of “voluntariness” to include the concept that a defendant must have an “understanding *654of the essential elements of the crime charged, including the requirement of specific intent ■ . . in order for a plea in the federal courts to be valid under Fed. Rule Grim. Proc. 11, that decision was held prospective only in Halliday, supra. Even had it not been, Rule 11 by its terms applies only to proceedings in federal courts.
A perusal of cases in the Courts of Appeals decided before McCarthy, supra, and Boykin, supra, indicates that, at least in the case where the defendant is counseled, there was no requirement that every element of the offense be explained to or admitted by the defendant 2 or even in every case that the consequences of the plea be enunciated. E. g., United States v. Cariola, 323 F. 2d 180 (CA3 1963); McGrady v. Cunningham, 296 F. 2d 600 (CA4 1961), cert. denied, 369 U. S. 855 (1962); Kennedy v. United States, 259 F. 2d 883 (CA5 1958), cert. denied, 359 U. S. 994 (1959); United States v. Swaggerty, 218 F. 2d 875 (CA7), cert. denied, 349 U. S. 959 (1955); see discussion in Halliday, supra, at 833. Thus, unless the Court intends to establish a new and far more stringent standard for all guilty pleas entered before the 1969 decisions of this Court in Boykin and McCarthy, respondent’s plea was “voluntary” as that term was understood before the decisions in those cases.3
*655But the Court refers to “voluntary in a constitutional sense” stating that the term includes the requirement of “ ‘real notice of the true nature of the . . .’ charge,” ante, at 645, citing the pre-Boykin case of Smith v. O’Grady, 312 U. S. 329 (1941). Smith involved an “uneducated” defendant “without counsel, bewildered by court processes strange and unfamiliar to him, and inveigled by false statements of state law enforcement officers into entering a plea of guilty.” Id., at 334. The Court further observed that Smith’s plea was involuntary because he had not received any “real notice of the true nature of the charge against him.” Ibid. That is, he was told he was pleading to “simple burglary” and would receive a 3-year sentence when in fact he was tricked into pleading to “burglary with explosives” and was sentenced to 20 years. Thus the “notice” required by Smith is accurate information as to the offense and sentence to which one is pleading, which respondent received.
Since it seems clear under the foregoing analysis that respondent’s plea was “voluntarily made,” and since it is undisputed that it was made with full understanding of its consequences, the only remaining issue is whether he was “properly advised,” as that term is used in Machibroda, supra. This inquiry, in turn, depends upon the sort of advice reasonably competent counsel would have been expected to give him, see Brady v. United States, 397 U. S. 742, 756-757 (1970), and McMann v. Richardson, 397 U. S. 759, 770 (1970). Thus the test *656to be applied is not whether respondent’s attorneys mechanically recited to him the elements of the crime with which he was charged as those elements would have been set forth in black letter law in a criminal law horn-book, but rather it is a test based on the practices of reasonably competent attorneys experienced in the day-today business of representing criminal defendants in a trial court.
The Court states that it “accept [s] petitioner’s characterization of the competence of respondent’s counsel and of the wisdom of their advice to plead guilty to a charge of second-degree murder.” Ante, at 644.
In McMann, supra, the Court held that the requirement that a guilty plea be intelligently made “is not a requirement that all advice offered by the defendant’s lawyer withstand retrospective examination in a post-conviction hearing.” 397 U. S., at 770. In this case, counsel advised their client as to the penalty for second-degree murder but did not go into “detail” as to the differences between first- and second-degree murder, believing that their client would not be interested. App. 57a. Now, 11 years later, this Court concludes that counsel’s decision was an error of constitutional magnitude.
Respondent was originally indicted for the crime of first-degree murder, and that indictment charged that in April 1965, he had “willfully, feloniously and of malice aforethought, stabbed and cut Ada Francisco with a dangerous knife . . . and that thereafter . . . the said Ada Francisco died of said wounds and injuries, said killing being inexcusable and unjustifiable.” Id., at 85a. Respondent’s attorney at the habeas hearing testified that respondent had stabbed his victim “many times” {id., at 67a), which suggests that experienced counsel would not consider the “design to effect death” issue to be in serious dispute. The habeas judge, in deciding that there was a *657factual basis for the entry of the plea, took much the same approach when he observed:
“The Court: Well the intent, I think there is a factual basis from the evidence where it, that is the jury would have a right to infer on the mere fact, I think when he hit her first and then used the knife, that there were multiple knife wounds, that the jury could infer, and as a matter of fact, I think from those same facts the Judge would have to permit the jury to decide as a question of fact whether there was premeditation on first degree murder, so that this man was a long way short of being out of the woods.
“So I am satisfied that there was a factual basis for the entry of the plea.” Id., at 78a.
I do not see how this Court, or any court, could conclude on this state of the record that respondent was not “properly advised” at the time he entered his plea of guilty to the charge of second-degree murder.
His attorneys were motivated by the eminently reasonable tactical judgment on their part that he should plead guilty to second-degree murder in order to avoid the possibility of conviction for first-degree murder with its more serious attendant penalties. Since the Court concedes both the competence of respondent’s counsel and the wisdom of their advice, that should be the end of the matter.
There are intimations in the Court’s opinion that the vice which it finds in the guilty plea is not that respondent was not informed of all the elements of the offense, but that instead he did not admit to all of those elements. Ante, at 646. But it is quite clear under our decision in North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U. S. 25 (1970), that the latter fact, standing alone, is not sufficient to invalidate a guilty plea. In Alford the defend*658ant not only was not asked to admit to a certain element of the offense, as here, but affirmatively denied having committed the crime at all. Yet we upheld the guilty plea because, as here, it was a tactically sound decision for the defendant to plead to second-degree murder in order to escape the greater penalties which might result from a first-degree murder conviction. In Alford we placed great weight on the fact that, as in this case, “the defendant was represented by competent counsel whose advice was that the plea would be to the defendant’s advantage.” Id., at 31.
Thus the fact, relied upon by the Court, ante, at 645-646, that a jury would not have been required to infer the requisite intent from the facts admitted at the guilty plea is not significant. Alford, at his guilty plea, presented a complete defense to the crime by stating that he had not shot anyone. 400 U. S., at 28 n. 2. Respondent admitted the stabbing but made no statement as to his intent. Even if he had denied the intent, this plea would be valid under Alford.
The “totality of the circumstances” in this case shows that respondent pleaded guilty to second-degree murder upon the advice of competent counsel. His plea was in no way the result of physical or psychological coercion or overreaching by the State, and he was fully advised as to the consequences of that plea. True, he was not expressly advised that the “design to effect death” was an element of the offense to which he was pleading, although the original first-degree-murder indictment charging “malice aforethought” had been read to him. Given the finding of the habeas judge that there was more than ample evidence from which the jury could have found that respondent had the requisite intent, I cannot subscribe to the Court’s invalidation of his pre-1969 guilty plea for such an extremely technical defect.
*659In adopting the rule it does, the Court opens the door to countless similarly situated prisoners to withdraw their guilty pleas many years after they were entered. Since it is unlikely that prosecutors will be able to reassemble witnesses and evidence at this late date to try these prisoners, the practical effect of the Court’s ruling will be to release these prisoners who at one time freely admitted their guilt.

 Admittedly the Court does not require that this litany be performed on the record, but the requirement that it be performed at some point in the proceedings, whether by counsel or by the court, is clear.

 The Court disclaims such a holding. Ante, at 647 n. 18. However, by holding that intent was a “critical element” here which must be described to the defendant the Court has accomplished the same effect, for every crime requires an intent and it is no more “critical” an element in this case than in any other. Indeed, it would seem to be far less significant here because it could have been presumed by the jury without any specific proof.

 In Brady v. United States, 397 U. S. 742, 755 (1970), the Court, in dealing with a pre-McCarthy guilty plea held that the “standard as to the voluntariness of guilty pleas” is that “ ‘ “[A] plea of guilty entered by one fully aware of the direct consequences, including the *655actual value of any commitments made to him by the court, prosecutor, or his own counsel, must stand unless induced by threats (or promises to discontinue improper harassment), misrepresentation (including unfulfilled or unfulfillable promises), or perhaps by promises that are by their nature improper as having no proper relationship to the prosecutor’s business (e. g., bribes).” ’ ” (Citation omitted.)