Court Opinion

ID: 9456639
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 19:58:55.39394+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:35:03.531374
License: Public Domain

WRIGHT, Circuit Judge
(dissenting):
The district judge considered this petition to be frivolous. I agree and would affirm his dismissal of it.
It would be hard to imagine a more careful, scrupulous effort on the part of a trial judge to be absolutely certain that a guilty plea was freely, voluntarily, intelligently and soberly made. The trial judge considered a three-page, detailed report of a physician of his examination two days before the guilty plea. The report was admitted in evidence by stipulation and the findings stipulated to be correct. The doctor found no drug influence at the time of the robbery or upon examination.
In the course of an extended colloquy before accepting the guilty plea, the court specifically inquired:
THE COURT: Is your mind clear this afternoon so that you know and understand what you are doing ?
THE DEFENDANT: Yes, sir.
My conviction that this negatived any possible influence of drugs is strengthened by two other factors. The trial judge, in the presence of appellant and his counsel, observed:
“(A)nd the court having addressed the defendant personally and having questioned him to determine that his guilty plea is made voluntarily with full understanding of the charge and the consequences of the plea, and the court having observed the defendant in making his answers, his demeanor and manner while answering the questions, his intelligence and attitude, the court finds the defendant to be free of any coercive influence of any kind, and *1001that he is pleading guilty because he did actually commit the crime charged and for no other reason.
“The court, therefore, determines and adjudicates the plea to have been made voluntarily with understanding of the nature of the charge and the consequences of the plea.” (Emphasis added.)
The other convincing factor is appellant’s letter to the trial judge of October 23, 1968, one month after sentence was imposed. It is quoted in the majority "opinion. In my view, it brings this appellant within the rule of Tweedy, also cited in the majority opinion.
The record conclusively shows that appellant is entitled to no relief.