Court Opinion

ID: 9456848
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 20:03:59.987386+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:35:07.232169
License: Public Domain

McLAUGHLIN, Circuit Judge
(dissenting) .
The sole reason for reversing the decision of the district court is appellant’s present allegation that he was not represented by counsel at a critical stage of the proceedings. What actually happened was that appellant’s attorney made a motion requesting permission to withdraw from his representation in the case of appellant and a codefendant, Carol Moore. Appellant was present with his father. Defendant Moore was also in court. The attorney did not appear. The judge left the decision whether the lawyer should be allowed to withdraw up to appellant and codefendant Moore; he cautioned the Assistant District Attorney not to have any talk with appellant unless the latter’s father was present. He further indicated that if appellant, his father and Miss Moore “decide they want to relieve Mr. Mullen (the attorney) I will consider appointing one of the attorneys sitting in the courtroom this morning to advise them.” A lengthy conference was then had, attended by Gallarelli, his father, Helen Koumanelis, a family friend, Carol Moore, the other two eodefendants and their counsel. In addition, Philip B. Papier, Jr., an attorney, was present throughout the conference and participated in the discussions held on Gallarelli’s behalf.1 At the conclusion of the recess, and after ap*1406pellant and Miss Moore stated that they had no objection to Mullen’s withdrawal from the case, Mr. Papier was appointed by the court to represent appellant and Miss Moore. No objection to this appointment was voiced by either defendant.
The discussions held at the lengthy four-hour conference concerned more than the withdrawal of Mullen. In the course of the conference, the Assistant United States Attorney suggested that the problem could be disposed of if each of the defendants would enter a guilty plea to the conspiracy count. The Assistant United States Attorney adhered to his original position that, unless all defendants entered pleas, the other two codefendants would be prosecuted under the entire indictment. In these circumstances, the codefendants standing to lose the most, Hienecke and Johnson, who were indicted on substantive charges, and their counsel, did make some attempt to persuade appellant to enter a plea. However, completely contrary to appellant’s assertion here that, absent that pressure, he would have maintained his innocence, this position is not borne out by the sworn statement of appellant’s father. He states:
“In the anteroom the main topic was not the innocence or guilt of the defendants but how much time would be given to the defendants if they plead guilty.”
Mr. Gallarelli, although not an attorney, was aware of his son’s rights and of the options open to him. On behalf of his son, he, in effect, bargained for a lesser sentence in return for the entry of a guilty plea, convincing the United States Attorney to recommend a three-year sentence rather than the five-year maximum under the statute. In addition, there are indications in the record that disposal of the case against Gallarelli by plea had been discussed on prior occasions by the Assistant United States Attorney and Mr. Mullen.
The district court found the plea to be voluntary, once upon accepting its tender and a second time in denying the motion to vacate the sentence imposed. Prior to accepting the guilty plea tendered by appellant, the trial judge examined him at length to determine whether the plea was voluntary. Appellant answered in the negative when asked if any influence, duress or coercion had been exercised in conjunction with it.2
As was pointed out by the opinion in Brady v. United States, 397 U.S. 749, 90 S.Ct. 1463, 25 L.Ed.2d 747 (1960) there are many reasons why an individual may decide to forego his right to a jury trial and plead guilty to a charge against him. One such cause is the indication that the sentencing judge will consider imposing a sentence less than the statutory maximum if the government is saved the time and expense of trial. This was obviously the situation faced by appellant Gallarelli. His decision to plead guilty was reached only after he obtained reasonable assurance that he would receive a sentence less than the statutory maximum.
Beyond all doubt there was no attempt by the Assistant United States Attorney to assert any undue influence. He did no more than state that he would fully perform his legal obligation, i. e., prosecute all defendants on the indictment returned by the grand jury. While Gallarelli was undoubtedly placed in an uncomfortable position vis-á-vis his codefendants, it was not of such a nature that could be considered coercion. As the court stated in Kent v. United States, 272 F.2d 795 (1 Cir. 1959),
“We are not prepared to say that it can be coercion to inform a defendant that someone close to him who is guilty *1407of a crime will be brought to book if he does not plead. If a defendant elects to sacrifice himself for such motives, that is his choice, and he cannot reverse it after he is dissatisfied with his sentence, or with other subsequent developments. * * * Indeed, a contrary ruling would mean that a defendant could equally say that he pleaded guilty to save himself. It is certainly not duress, if the promise is kept, for the government to say it will recommend a lighter sentence if a defendant pleads than it might recommend if he is convicted after trial. Yet, obviously, ‘fear’ of the greater sentence may induce a plea. Petitioner must show that he was subjected to threats or promises of illegitimate action. Statements that other guilty parties will be prosecuted if he does not plead are not of that description.” 272 F.2d at 798-799.
See also Kimbrough v. Beto, 412 F.2d 981 (5 Cir. 1969).
In common fairness I must conclude that appellant was adequately represented by counsel. As stated previously, during the conference held, appellant’s interests were protected by his father and by Philip B. Papier, Esq., who participated on his behalf. Mr. Papier was formally appointed as appellant’s attorney as soon as his decision to release Mr. Mullen was disclosed to the district judge, and he appeared for appellant when the original plea of not guilty was retracted and the guilty plea entered and at the sentencing on said plea. At no time was there any objection to Papier’s appointment or representation. While the record might have been more formally covered by an appointment prior to the conference, there was no prejudice to appellant in the procedure utilized by the district judge and no inherent harm to him can be conscientiously inferred. Papier was familiar with the charges against Gallarelli, having represented one of his codefendants for a period of nearly two years. During the four-hour conference he learned enough about appellant’s position to advise him as to the course to follow. The record demonstrates that appellant was not injured in any way by the late formal appointment. United States ex rel. Chambers v. Maroney, 408 F.2d 1186 (3 Cir. 1969), aff’d 399 U.S. 42, 90 S.Ct. 1975, 26 L.Ed.2d 419 (1970).
For the reasons stated herein my judgment is that the decision of the district court should be affirmed.

. Mr. Papier was no stranger to the matter, having represented the fourth codefendant, James Joa. He undoubtedly attended the conference at the request of the judge, without a formal appointment.

. The rule announced in McCarthy v. United States, 394 U.S. 459, 89 S.Ct. 1166, 22 L.Ed.2d 418 (1969) does not apply to appellant’s circumstances. Halliday v. United States, 394 U.S. 831, 89 S.Ct. 1498, 23 L.Ed.2d 16 (1969). My examination of the record convinces me that the district court questioned appellant sufficiently to determine that he understood the nature of the charge against him and was aware of the consequences of his plea.