Court Opinion

ID: 9679004
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 06:38:11.604986+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:17:09.601458
License: Public Domain

Carter, J.,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent from the holdings of this opinion. Defendant was charged on two counts, motor vehicle homicide and leaving the scene of an accident. With the advice of his court appointed counsel, defendant entered a plea of guilty to motor vehicle homicide and was sentenced to imprisonment for 18 months. With the consent of the court, the charge of leaving the scene of the accident was dismissed by the county attorney.
At the time defendant appeared for the purpose of *705changing his plea from not guilty to guilty, the court interrogated defendant at length with his counsel present. The court elicited the following facts: Defendant understood that he was entitled to a jury trial if he pleaded not guilty. He said he had received a copy of the information and fully understood the charge and its possible penalities. He acknowledged that his attorney had represented him in all proceedings beginning with the preliminary hearing. He had discussed the matter many times with his counsel and had revealed all the facts to1 him as he knew them. He stated that no promises had been made to him to secure his guilty plea and that his plea of guilty was voluntary on his part. His counsel made a plea for parole to the court in which many extenuating circumstances, which will be included in a subsequent part of this dissent, were called to the court’s attention. The county attorney stated that he would make no recommendation to the court, but did say that he did not oppose or disagree with any leniency the court might see fit to grant. The trial court proceeded to impose the sentence of 18 months’ imprisonment and the second count was dismissed with the consent of the court.
This post conviction proceeding was filed on December 22, 1966. It is contended by the defendant that he was furnished ineffective counsel and that his plea of guilty was induced by fraud and mistake and that such plea was not understandingly made. The primary question is whether or not defendant’s counsel, in advising a plea of guilty under the facts and circumstances he had before him, was so derelict in his professional duty, or, as the majority opinion says, so breached his duty of loyalty, as to require a finding that he was an “ineffective counsel” within the meaning of the law. In other words, the majority opinion holds that defendant’s counsel was so derelict in his professional duty in advising the defendant to enter his plea of guilty as to require a reversal of the judgment.
*706The testimony of defendant’s counsel may be summarized as follows: Defendant was a married man, 27 years of age, with two small children and a third expected. He was a high school graduate and not as “sharp” as his- counsel would expect him to be. On or about March 16, 1966, he drove his automobile down the main street of the village of Emmet and struck and killed an elderly lady who was angling across the street. Crossing the street in this locality in this manner was a common practice by adults and children alike. Defendant stated that he did not know he had struck anyone, did not stop, and was found at home in bed shortly thereafter. Defendant’s automobile had a shattered windshield, had its radio antenna broken off which was found under the body of the deceased, and the fender and hood showed that it had been struck by a heavy object. The skull of the deceased was completely crushed and she never regained consciousness. Defendant’s statement that he did not know he struck a person does not appear very plausible under these circumstances. Defendant never admitted that he struck any person, but his attorney states that he had a very unclear description of what occurred at the scene of the accident. After his appointment by the court to represent the defendant, he appeared at the preliminary hearing, heard the witnesses and cross-examined them, but decided to put on no evidence. The evidence shows that he interrogated the sheriff, visited the scene of the accident, and visited several witnesses in the village of Emmet. This produced evidence that defendant had been drinking immediately before the accident and that he was a habitual drinker, although not a drunkard, but did not hold his liquor well. Defendant consulted with him numerous times and with defendant’s wife, parents, and brothers at other times. He told them that there was a very good chance of a parole if defendant entered a plea of guilty. He visited with the county attorney concerning a possible parole and was told by him that he thought defendant *707had a good chance to be paroled, a matter that would not be resisted by him. He pointed out that paroles had been granted in two similar cases and that he thought the same result would be followed here. He denied that defendant or members of his family were ever assured by him that a parole would be granted or that he ever made any such statement to induce a plea of guilty. The contention that he stated that a parole was “all cut and dried” were the words of defendant’s present attorney and not his, although he was of the opinion that a parole would be granted. It is asserted by defendant that a second automobile was involved in this accident. This was a statement of one or more of defendant’s relatives who admitted they did not see the accident. He visited with the sheriff about a second car and was told that there was no indication that a second car was involved in the accident. He mentioned the matter to the county attorney who said he had also heard this rumor, had checked it out, and that there was nothing to indicate the participation of a second car. He insisted that the matter of a guilty plea was left entirely to defendant although he advised that in his judgment it was the best thing to do. He asserted that he stood ready to try the case if defendant desired that such a course be followed. He summarized the basis of his recommendation to plead guilty as follows: Defendant had been previously convicted of leaving the scene of an accident. The shattered windshield, the broken antenna found under the deceased, the damaged fender and hood, and the serious injuries inflicted on deceased was evidence of a great impact and excessive speed. The previous drinking and defendant’s failure to stop were difficult to overcome in securing an acquittal. The evidence of a second car participating was of little substance and supported only by the remote evidence of defendant’s close relatives. The defendant’s record was good since the incident. He had worked steadily to support his wife and family. The county attorney agreed *708that defendant’s conduct was good and he knew of nothing to militate against a parole. He knew that paroles had been granted by the same judge in two other similar cases. Considering all these pertinent factors and the difficulty in securing an acquittal, he advised the defendant to enter his plea of guilty. This, he believed to be to the best interests of defendant and would be preferable to a conviction by a jury which he felt could not be avoided.
I submit that the foregoing facts, do not show ineffective counsel or any want of loyalty. I disagree with the holding that defendant’s counsel intentionally misrepresented the defendant. Certainly in the proper representation of a client, an attorney may exercise his best judgment as to’ trial tactics;, strategy, or a plea of guilty if it is deemed to the best interests of the defendant. True, in this case, his opinion that defendant would be paroled proved wrong, but this is no basis; for a holding that he so; misrepresented his client or breached his duty of loyalty. The exercise of judgment in this; case was reasonable in that it was grounded on considerations that justified the advice given. In Busby v. Holman, 356 F. 2d 75 (1966), it is stated: “In considering this contention of the appellant we must bear in mind that the constitutional requirement of effective assistance of counsel does not require or permit the court upon a subsequent review to analyze counsel’s mental processes in order to determine whether every conceivable avenue of evidence has been totally explored and every possible theory of defense has been pursued. United States ex rel. Boucher v. Reincke, 2 Cir. 1965, 341 F. 2d 977, 981. It is not counsel who is on trial. There can be held to be a lack of the effective assistance of counsel only when it appears that counsel’s assistance was so grossly inept as to shock the conscience of the court and make the proceedings a farce and a mockery of justice. (Citing cases.)” In United States ex rel. Feeley v. Ragen (7th Cir. 1948), 166 F. 2d 976, it is stated: “The best of coun*709sel make mistakes. His mistakes, although indicative of lack of skill or even incompetency, will not vitiate the trial unless on the whole the representation is of such low caliber as to amount to no representation and to reduce the trial to a farce.” The record in this case does not approach a finding of ineffective counsel under the foregoing rule.
Legal counsel are expected to accept appointments to represent indigent defendants. But if matters of professional judgment are to be reviewed on appeal and considered as a matter of hindsight rather than on the facts and circumstances facing him at the time of decision, the fear of a tarnished professional reputation may become more compelling than the best interests of the indigent defendant. The members of the legal profession should not and must not be restricted in the exercise of their professional judgment in representing the best interests of the defendant as it appears to them.
The majority opinion recommends that upon the tender of a guilty plea that the court inquire into plea discussions and plea agreements between counsel. It is urged that this is only a recommendation and not a compulsory practice. But such gratuitous advice is intended for some purpose or the trial court would not be invited into the offers, counteroffers, misunderstandings, and general confusion arising therefrom. It involves a matter not binding on the court, but it infers that the trial court is to be influenced in some way by injecting itself in such arguments and discussions. I submit that the recommendation is an unwarranted limitation of the trial judge’s judicial discretion and an undue extension of modern thinking on plea bargaining now making its appearance in our criminal procedure. I cannot bring myself to support the proposed recommendation for the reasons stated.