Court Opinion

ID: 9424738
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-02 23:12:37.544405+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:22:52.206518
License: Public Domain

Mr. Justice White,
with whom The Chief Justice joins,
dissenting.
There is no suggestion that either the trial court accepting petitioner’s plea of guilty or the state court denying habeas corpus employed an erroneous legal standard in proceeding as it did. On this record we may “properly assume that the state trier of fact applied correct standards of federal law to the facts, in the absence of evidence . . . that there is reason to suspect that an incorrect standard was in fact applied.” Townsend v. Sain, 372 U. S. 293, 315 (1963). And in participating in our appellate function and acting on the cold record before us, I cannot presume greater insight into petitioner’s understanding of his rights, his waiver of counsel, and his plea of guilty than that of the other courts that have considered this case, including the state court accepting the plea of guilty and the habeas corpus court that heard petitioner and the other evidence. According to the undisputed evidence as to the circumstances surrounding the plea, petitioner stated that he waived counsel, admitted that he was guilty, and accordingly entered his plea. Like Mr. Justice Powell, I think the judgment of the state court was fairly supported by the evidence. The petition for writ of certiorari having been granted, I would affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals.