Court Opinion

ID: 9557599
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 16:53:13.178444+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:06:04.375321
License: Public Domain

Munson, J.
(concurring) — I am constrained to concur with Judge Mclnturff. The factual posture of the record requires this court to order an evidentiary hearing.
In Schiebelhut v. United States, 357 F.2d 743 (6th Cir. 1966) at 745 the court stated:
If the material available to the [trial judge] was limited to the pre-plea colloquy, the charges of . . . petition and the government’s opposing affidavits, and if petitioner’s charges had the required specificity, we would, . . . remand for the holding of a hearing. The record, however, contains more.
The record before us does not contain “more.” I am advised petitioner testified at the superior court hearing on this petition. That record, however, is not before us.
The record does reflect that defendant, after having been convicted of a felony, was accused of being an habitual criminal, based on six prior felony convictions. It now appears two of these convictions may be void under Loper v. Beto, 405 U.S. 473, 31 L. Ed. 2d 374, 92 S. Ct. 1014 (1972). The other four, on their face, meet the prevailing constitutional standards. United States v. Tucker, 404 U.S. 443, 30 L. Ed. 2d 592, 92 S. Ct. 589 (1972); Burgett v. Texas, 389 U.S. 109, 19 L. Ed. 2d 319, 88 S, Ct. 258 (1967); Gideon v. Wainright, 372 U.S. 335, 9 L. Ed. 2d 799, 83 S. Ct. 792, 93 A.L.R.2d 733 (1963). It would appear, even if defendant is granted a rehearing before a jury on the habitual criminal issue, there is still sufficient evidence with which to justify a finding of that status. Thus, to so utilize the court’s time is not in keeping with good judicial administration. However, that is not an issue presently before us.
At the trial on the habitual criminal accusation, defense counsel advised the court in chambers the defendant waived his right to a jury trial. No record was made of that waiver. Petitioner now alleges that he did not knowingly waive his right to jury trial. This allegation is controverted *732by affidavits of trial counsel for the respective parties and the court’s findings. However, petitioner’s allegations are more than “bald conclusions unsupported by allegation of fact.” Martinez v. United States, 344 F.2d 325 (10th Cir. 1965). The affidavits served to formulate a serious factual issue on the question of waiver. While I personally might form an opinion on the merits of that issue after reading the documentation before us, that is not proper at this time. Ford v. Wingo, 472 F.2d 148 (6th Cir. 1973); Dixon v. Caldwell, 471 F.2d 767, 771 (5th Cir. 1972). Having so formulated the material issue, the affidavits have served their purpose, i.e., to require an evidentiary hearing. Fontaine v. United States, 411 U.S. 213, 36 L. Ed. 2d 169, 93 S. Ct. 1461 (1973); Machibroda v. United States, 368 U.S. 487, 7 L. Ed. 2d 473, 82 S. Ct. 510 (1962).