Court Opinion

ID: 9461695
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 22:22:55.273471+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:37:13.752442
License: Public Domain

ENGEL, Circuit'Judge.
This is an appeal from denial by the district court without an evidentiary hearing of appellant Vincent Maglaya’s petition for writ of habeas corpus, filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The petition, as filed in the district court, alleged eight grounds for relief from Maglaya’s conviction by a Detroit Recorder’s Court jury of armed robbery of a Kroger Store on May 23, 1966.1 We affirm.
Maglaya’s principal contentions relate to the credibility of one Patrick Logan who testified for the prosecution at the trial. It is acknowledged that Maglaya’s conviction was almost completely dependent upon Logan’s testimony and consequently his credibility. The actual robbery itself was carried out by Logan and thus eyewitnesses to the holdup could not identify Maglaya. According to Logan, Maglaya’s role in the robbery, had included planning it, furnishing the robbery note and gun, driving Logan and McGath to the vicinity of the store, assisting Logan in his getaway, and finally sharing the proceeds.
Logan had been confined in a state mental hospital from January 1963 to July 1965 when he was released on convalescent status. About four months later, after having been given a psychiatric examination, he was certified as competent and completely discharged.
On September 2, 1966 Logan turned himself in to the police and confessed to involvement in a number of crimes. His confession implicated Maglaya and one Ross McGath in the May 23, 1966 armed *267robbery involved here, and as well involved Maglaya and one Reece Hayes in the armed robbery of a Food Giant Supermarket in Detroit on April 1, 1966. In consequence of Logan’s confession, Maglaya was arrested for both robberies. On December 16, 1966 a preliminary examination was held in both cases, resulting in Maglaya’s being bound over for trial on both armed robbery charges. On May 12, 1967 a Detroit Recorder’s Court jury found Maglaya guilty of the April 1, 1966 robbery and his conviction was affirmed by the Michigan Court of Appeals in People v. Maglaya, 17 Mich.App. 379, 169 N.W.2d 530. Maglaya’s jury trial on the May 23, 1966 robbery commenced in Recorder’s Court on October 26, 1967 and resulted in his conviction, and a sentence of not less than 25 years nor more than 40 years by then Recorder’s Court Judge Robert E. De-Mascio. This conviction was affirmed by the Michigan Court of Appeals, People v. McGath and Maglaya, 31 Mich.App. 351, 187 N.W. 904 (1971). Leave to appeal to the Michigan Supreme Court was denied.
Prior to the preliminary examination on December 16, 1966 before examining magistrate Daniel J. Van Antwerp, Mag-laya made a motion for the appointment of a sanity commission to examine Logan. This was denied by Judge Van Antwerp since Logan had already been examined by a Recorder’s Court Psychiatric Clinic in connection with a charge on which he was then awaiting sentence. Judge Van Antwerp also denied a defense motion to produce the Psychiatric Clinic’s files on Logan. It is the denial by the magistrate of Recorder’s Court clinic records relating to Logan’s mental condition which Maglaya claims constitutes a denial of due process under Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963), and subsequent cases. In Brady, it was held that “the suppression by the prosecution of evidence favorable to the accused upon request violates due process where the evidence is material either to guilt or to punishment, irrespective of the good faith or bad faith of the prosecution.” 373 U.S. at 87, 83 S.Ct. at 1197.
Viewed in the light most favorable to the appellant, a careful review of the record confirms the district' court’s finding that although the existence of the medical reports was known to Maglaya and his counsel, no effort was made to subpoena them in the trial of the May 23 robbery. Maglaya seeks to justify his failure to subpoena the records and witnesses on the basis that the effort would have been futile in view of his earlier experience in the trial of the April 1 robbery. While we do not have the record of that trial, it is apparent from references to it in Maglaya’s brief that at the earlier trial he had subpoenaed six witnesses who were either psychologists or psychiatrists, including those who participated in the examination of Logan at the Recorder’s Court Clinic.
In post-conviction proceedings in the Recorder’s Court, two of the requested reports were ultimately produced. The June 3, 1966 report of psychiatrist Aloy-sius S. Church stated in part:
“Psychiatric Evaluation
This individual reveals emotional instability with passive-aggressive and compulsive features. There is evidence of paranoid trends. There is a history of a suicidal attempt.
Recommendation:
We recommend a period of institutionalization, to be followed by supervision.”
The report of psychiatrist Roger T. Costello, prepared for Recorder’s Judge John A. Ricca on October 10, 1966, provided:
“The patient resumed (after leaving the Detroit House of Correction in July) the commission of robberies with a loaded gun. From the Chatham Supermarket alone, the two men and one woman handed over $2200. The patient allegedly split with a buddy and used the balance to buy items for his wife including a hi-fi and French poodle.
*268The patient has a sociopathic personality disturbance with underlying schizophrenia. He is egocentric, unreliable and undependable.
We would recommend a maximum period of institutionalization.”
The Recorder’s Court Clinic was established under the authority of Michigan Public Act No. 369 of 1919, § 3, M.C.L.A. 725.3 which grants the court “power to make provision for a psychopathic department of the court and have medical and psychopathic investigations and examinations and treatment of persons coming before said court . . . . ” Appellant claims that he was entitled, as a matter of Michigan law, to access to the records concerning Logan to assist him in his defense at the trial, relying upon People v. Saccoia, 268 Mich. 132, 255 N.W. 738 (1934) where it was stated:
“The psychopathic department of the court is a part of the court. Its reports are public reports, authorized by law, and the defendant had a right to have access thereto and to learn their contents.” 255 N.W. at 740.
Other than to note that in People v. Saccoia, supra, the issue was the defendant’s right to access to his own psychiatric records for use in his defense against a murder charge, we do not find it necessary to decide here whether, as to Maglaya, Logan’s psychiatric records were properly declared confidential or privileged or were otherwise properly denied under Michigan law.
So far as the record in the state proceedings which led to Maglaya’s conviction of the May 23, 1966 robbery, there is no further indication that after the denial of the request during the preliminary examination stage, Maglaya ever again sought to have this information produced. Indeed he does not even make such a claim. Instead, he claims that the unavailing efforts of his counsel to have such information produced at his earlier trial for the April 1, 1966 robbery demonstrate the futility of seeking it in the trial involved here, and thus excused his further efforts. In essence, he argues that the asserted error of the trial court in his trial of the earlier robbery can be raised in a federal court collateral attack upon the validity of an entirely distinct trial involved an entirely separate offense. We find this claim to be completely untenable. At issue here is whether the appellant’s constitutional rights to due process and the fundamental fairness implicit therein were denied him in the trial and conviction involved here. We find they were not.
A careful examination of the state court record is convincing that Maglaya’s claims are substantially overstated. Contrary to appellant’s assertion, no effort to deceive either Maglaya or the jury concerning Logan’s background and credibility was made out. On its own initiative, the prosecution brought out at the trial that Logan had previously been institutionalized at Ionia State Hospital and had been released on July 6, 1965; that he had been certified as mentally competent and had had his rights of citizenship restored on February 26, 1966. Admissibility of evidence in a state trial does not normally raise constitutional-questions unless it impugns fundamental fairness, Gemmel v. Buchkoe, 358 F.2d 338 (6th Cir. 1966), cert. denied, 385 U.S. 962, 87 S.Ct. 402, 17 L.Ed.2d 306, reh. denied, 385 U.S. 1021, 87 S.Ct. 723, 17 L.Ed.2d 561; Burks v. Egeler, 508 F.2d 672, 6th Cir. Further, we are shown no authority which holds that the denial of discovery at the preliminary examination stage of criminal proceedings rises to the level of a constitutional deprivation. Indeed, we have held in this circuit that there is no constitutional right to a preliminary hearing at all. Dillard v. Bomar, 342 F.2d 789 (6th Cir. 1965). Even assuming the highly doubtful proposition that the evidence sought was admissible, the rights protected under Brady v. Maryland, supra, are not violated when a defendant in a criminal trial has full knowledge of the existence of the evidence prior to trial and makes no effort to obtain its production. In addition, we note that the facts concerning Logan’s *269prior mental history were exhaustively covered at the trial.
Closely akin to the Brady issue is the claim that the prosecution knowingly permitted Logan to testify falsely at the trial in violation of Maglaya’s right to due process as protected under Mooney v. Holohan, 294 U.S. 103, 55 S.Ct. 340, 79 L.Ed. 791 (1935), and subsequent cases. Using his own words, Maglaya claims that “the prosecutor portrayed his witness as a man being sane, had no psychiatric treatment, whereas, the record established at the time prosecutor so portrayed his witness thus, he knew that two psychiatrists had declared Logan to be insane, a man suffering from various types of psychopathic disabilities, a man termed a’ psychopathic liar and recommended for long commitment to a mental institution for the insane”.
As did the district court, we find this latter contention to be without merit. The record shows that at the trial, the prosecution presented Logan to the jury as he was. It made no effort to hide his past criminal record, nor his history of mental illness. That Logan was in fact discharged from the Ionia State Hospital and determined competent by the probate court, as testified to by him, is not disputed. Appellant’s assertion that the two psychiatrists had determined Logan to be insane and recommended long commitment to a mental institution for the insane is at best an overstatement of the reports of Doctors Costello and Church. Since the reports were rendered in response to a referral by the Recorder’s Court Judge in connection with the sentencing of Logan, we understand the recommendation to refer to long confinement in a penal rather than a mental institution. Such a recommendation, aside from being essentially a conclusory opinion, is hardly the type of evidence which an alleged confederate would want before the jury. Logan testified at length to his history of mental illness and the issue was exhaustively presented to the jury. In short, appellant has wholly failed to show where in fact the government permitted Logan to testify falsely at the trial.
We find it necessary to discuss only one further asserted ground for appeal, Maglaya’s claim that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel. This issue is fully and satisfactorily covered in the decision of the Michigan Court of Appeals and would ordinarily suffice to dispose of the issue. However, the district court in its opinion cited the “farce and mockery of justice [rule]” of Hayes v. Russell, 405 F.2d 859 (6th Cir. 1969), a standard which we have since rejected in favor of holding that “the assistance of counsel required under the Sixth Amendment is counsel reasonably likely to render and rendering reasonably effective assistance”. Beasley v. United States, 491 F.2d 687, 696 (6th Cir. 1974). Not only does our own review of the record satisfy us that the conduct of Maglaya’s counsel met the proper standard of Beasley, but we note as well that in .passing upon the same issue, the Michigan courts did not in any event rely upon a “farce and mockery” or other improper standard. Under such circumstances, remand is unnecessary. Berry v. Cowan, 497 F.2d 1274 (6th Cir. 1974).
The remaining issues raised on appeal, and as well those two raised in the district court but not here, we find to be without merit for the reasons stated in the opinion of Chief District Judge Noel P. Fox in his opinion and order dated March 13, 1973.
Accordingly, the judgment of the dis- . trict court is affirmed.

. Maglaya raised the following issues in his petition to the district court below:

Issue # 1,

Did the trial court deny defendant a fair trial/due process by withholding from defense information which the same court had ordered from its own psychiatric clinic when the said person’s credibility was involved?

Issue # 2.

Did the state violate due process by failure to disclose that information that Logan was an unreliable witness?
Issue # 3.
Was witness Logan’s testimony procured by an open or implied promise of leniency at his own sentencing?
Issue # 4.
Was witness Logan’s testimony so unreliable that it should have been stricken?

Issue ‡‡ 5.

Did the trial court err in the failure to instruct the jury that Logan’s testimony regarding the planning of other holdups with these accomplices (T. 212) was limited in its relevance?

Issue # 6.

Did the prosecutor commit prejudicial error when he elicited testimony that a gun with five bullets was found in a studio where defendant Maglaya was working at the time of his arrest?

Issue # 7.

Was defendant denied effective assistance of counsel when counsel was forced to trial over defendant’s objection with insufficient time to prepare for trial?

Issue # 8.

Was the defendant denied due process of law, the equal protection of the laws when he received a sentence of 25-40 years and the actual perpetrator of the crime received a five year probation?
Issues number 5 and 6 have not been raised by appellant’s brief on appeal to this court.