Court Opinion

ID: 9457845
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 20:34:55.513503+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:35:32.061883
License: Public Domain

OAKES, Circuit Judge
(dissenting):
A brief recital of the facts is necessary because the statement of them in the majority opinion overlooks some of the key elements underlying appellant’s claims.
In the clubby atmosphere of the County Court of Monroe County, New York, where the assistant district attorney, “Lew,” appointed defense counsel, “Bob,” and the judge have just met in chambers in the absence of the defendant to discuss the case, the district attorney addresses the defendant in open court directly. He asks the defendant whether through his attorney he wishes to change his not guilty pleas and to enter a plea of guilty to the second count —selling dangerous drugs in the third degree. The court interrupts the district attorney and says that “so far as I am concerned, it may be that two indictments were to be disposed of through one plea, but it was not a plea to Selling a Dangerous Drug in the Third Degree. That was no part of our talk.” By “talk,” the judge presumably is referring to the talk just had in chambers, where apparently a plea bargain had been struck informally and in the presence of the trial court, if not the defendant.
Defense counsel disputes the judge as to what had been agreed to and when he asks the district attorney on the record for his version, the latter replies, “No comment.” Yet it is that very same district attorney who just asked the defendant whether the latter wished to plead to third degree selling.
Under the circumstances, defense counsel asks for a one day adjournment, pointing out that while the case was answered ready at the call of the February calendar he was “not informed until this morning that we were proceeding.” The court denies this application and defense counsel says he is going to withdraw “because I can’t adequately defend this man without some preparation, and I think the District Attorney should at least give me that kind of notice.” The court gives counsel time enough on the spot to talk to the defendant who under the circumstances changes his plea to guilty of selling in the second degree. The usual ritual then takes place, with only one slip in the dialogue immaterial here (when the defendant says he has been told what sentence he would receive and his attorney denies this, whereupon the defendant agrees that he has not been told).
Prior to sentencing the defendant’s attorney seeks leave to withdraw the plea of guilty and to put the matter back on the trial calendar in an informal, oral motion since he has been “unable to get the papers prepared” because of his own “commitments” and “schedule.” This motion is denied. On the sentencing, beyond seeking to preserve the record on the motion to withdraw the plea, counsel *709indicates that the defendant has a big family, his wife is in the courtroom and that “I have nothing more to say other than what I have said in chambers.” Presumably this refers to another off-the-record talk in the defendant’s absence where his sentencing was discussed. Out of all this, the defendant Martinez receives a sentence with a maximum of fifteen years and a minimum of five years at Attica.
An involuntary plea of guilty, Machibroda v. United States, 368 U.S. 487, 493, 82 S.Ct. 510, 7 L.Ed.2d 473 (1962), violates due process “in both State and Federal prosecutions.” Oaks v. Wainwright, 445 F.2d 1062, 1063 (5th Cir. 191). Defendant was faced with the dilemma of proceeding immediately to trial with a defense attorney who had just announced that he was not ready to proceed and who had asked to withdraw. How such a situation could result in the exercise of “a voluntary and intelligent choice among the alternative courses of action open to the defendant,” North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25, 31, 91 S.Ct. 160, 164, 27 L.Ed.2d 162 (1970), the majority opinion fails to disclose. As Judge Kaufman pointed out with pride in United States ex rel. Rosa v. Follette, 395 F.2d 721, 724 (2d Cir.) cert. denied, 393 U.S. 892, 89 S.Ct. 216, 21 L.Ed.2d 172 (1968), “This court has gone to great lengths to protect against convictions based upon guilty pleas due to coercion, misunderstanding or general confusion.” See also United States ex rel. Carter v. LaVallee, 441 F.2d 620 (2d Cir. 1971); United States ex rel. McGrath v. LaVallee, 319 F.2d 308, 311 (2d Cir. 1963). Here all three elements were present: “coercion” in that the court was demanding trial with counsel unprepared; “misunderstanding” in that apparently both the prosecuting and defense attorneys thought the plea was to be to third degree selling and the court thought otherwise; and “general confusion” in that the key “talk” occurred in defendant’s absence, and the prosecuting attorney failed to back up his own understanding when asked to do so on the record.
Moreover, the right to counsel under the sixth and fourteenth amendments means the right to counsel that has had opportunity to prepare. While there doubtless had been time here, apparently counsel had been hopeful of negotiating some plea bargain. Following what was clearly at least a misunderstanding on the terms of that bargain, counsel asked only for a one-day delay. As the Supreme Court said in Ungar v. Sarafite, 376 U.S. 575, 589, 84 S.Ct. 841, 849, 11 L.Ed.2d 921 (1964):
The matter of continuance is traditionally within the discretion of the trial judge, and it is not every denial of a request for more time that violates due process even if the party fails to offer evidence or is compelled to defend without counsel. Avery v. Alabama, 308 U.S. 444, [60 S.Ct. 321, 84 L.Ed. 377.] Contrariwise, a myopic insistence upon expeditiousness in the face of a justifiable request for delay can render the right to defend with counsel an empty formality. Chandler v. Fretag, 348 U.S. 3, [75 S.Ct. 1, 99 L.Ed. 4.]
(Emphasis supplied; the matter italicized was rather significantly omitted by the device of three asterisks in the State’s brief’s quotation of this case.)
In a case involving an adjournment after trial had commenced, and hence all the more compelling in this case, where the trial had not yet begun, Judge Moore said: “An adjournment would not have been an unduly burdensome hiatus in the trial, since the witnesses were few and the factual issues clearly defined.” United States v. White, 324 F.2d 814, 816 (2d Cir. 1963). See also United States v. Mitchell, 354 F.2d 767, 769 (2d Cir. 1966) (allowing only five days to obtain new counsel held an abuse of discretion). The fact that counsel requested only an overnight adjournment is used against the defendant by the majority here on the basis that it “would *710indicate the lack of complexity of the defense.” This may be true although I do not believe it is proper for this court to speculate what the nature of the defense might have been;1 but surely the request was not unreasonable when there had been at least a misunderstanding on the plea bargain.
I do not understand the majority opinion’s reference to Martinez’ background and other convictions. If the reference is meant to indicate that Martinez knew what he was doing when he was pleading guilty I suppose that is one inference that is permissible; another is that he might have known from his previous experience how disastrous it can be for a defendant — especially one with a criminal record — to go to trial with counsel unprepared. I cannot suppose that the reference to Martinez’ criminal record is intended to imply that probably he was guilty as he pleaded, since such speculation would be improper.
But I think that the majority opinion is wrong, not just on the points of constitutional law mentioned. I think it is wrong as a matter of judicial administrative policy. I refer, of course, to the proposition that in the interests of promoting plea bargaining “a constant factor is that when a plea rests in any significant degree on a promise or agreement of the prosecutor, so that it can be said to be part of the inducement or consideration, such promise must be fulfilled.” Santobello v. New York, 404 U. S. 257, 92 S.Ct. 495, 499, 30 L.Ed.2d 427 (1971). Here every indication is that the prosecutor reneged on his part of the bargain to accept a plea to selling in the third degree. Otherwise, why would he have said, “No comment”? Accordingly, under Santobello we should remand, leaving it to the state court to determine whether there should be “specific performance of the agreement on the plea” — here an opportunity to plead to sale in the third degree — in which case sentencing should certainly be before a different judge — or whether the relief sought, that is, withdrawal of the plea of guilty to sale in the second degree, should be granted. The majority says that this was not a “situation” of a broken promise. But to what was the prosecutor referring when he himself asked the defendant initially if he would plead to the third degree count? Even if there were a simple misunderstanding, however, the policy of Santobello should apply. Under no version of the facts can it appear that there was not at least such a misunderstanding.
I dissent.

. Hawk v. Olson, 326 U.S. 271, 278, 66 S.Ct. 116, 120, 90 L.Ed. 61 (1945) (“Continuance may or may not have been useful to the accused but the importance of the assistance of counsel in a serious criminal charge after arraignment is too large to permit speculation on its effect”).