Court Opinion

ID: 9459741
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 21:30:38.169801+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:36:18.903308
License: Public Domain

*145BOREMAN, Senior Circuit Judge
(dissenting):
One of the prior convictions on which Hart’s habitual offender sentence was based was a conviction on December 28, 1949, for issuing a check against insufficient funds. He was convicted upon his plea of guilty. I conclude that Hart did not have the effective assistance of counsel in connection with the entry of his guilty plea, that his 1949 conviction was invalid and that it should have been rejected as a “conviction” at his trial as a recidivist. I therefore conclude that the district court erred in denying ha-beas relief and on that ground alone I would reach the end result of reversal. I believe, however, that the course my brothers have chosen to follow, in basing their decision on the cruel and unusual punishment provisions of the Eighth Amendment, is not only unnecessary but also unsupportable, and I do not hesitate to indicate my disagreement therewith.
THE 1949 CONVICTION
Hart was represented in 1949 by inexperienced counsel who was appointed for him and who had been admitted to practice in March 1949. The first time Hart met his court-appointed attorney was in the courtroom on the day he entered his guilty plea. Counsel testified at the evi-dentiary hearing below as a witness for the State but he did not even faintly recall having represented Hart in 1949.
Hart testified that after the appointment of counsel he and the attorney withdrew to discuss the pending charge. The attorney told him that if he did not plead guilty the prosecuting attorney would proceed against him as a second offender and thereby add five years to his sentence, but that if he did plead guilty the prosecutor would disregard any prior felony conviction.1 He informed Hart that he did not have to plead guilty and could have a jury trial. Counsel asked Hart if he was guilty of the charge and Hart “told him that I was guilty for they had my name on the check.” Hart further testified in response to a query about whether he and his attorney had discussed the facts surrounding the charge against him: “He told me they had the check-against me with my name on it. And that, ., the Prosecutor, was going to ask for the five years former conviction. That if I would plead guilty then I would just get the one to five years.” Hart stated that he and his attorney discussed nothing further with regard to the charge against him.
It is settled law in this circuit that late appointment of counsel is so inherently prejudicial as to constitute a prima facie case of denial of effective assistance of counsel. Stokes v. Peyton, 437 F.2d 131 (4 Cir. 1970); Fields v. Pey-ton, 375 F.2d 624 (4 Cir. 1967); Twi-ford v. Peyton, 372 F.2d 670 (4 Cir. 1967); Martin v. Virginia, 365 F.2d 549 (4 Cir. 1966); Jones v. Cunningham, 313 F.2d 347 (4 Cir. 1963). The burden is upon the State to introduce satisfaeto-*146ry evidence to overcome the presumption of prejudice arising therefrom. In holding that the State met this burden in this case the majority states that Hart “testified that he admitted his guilt to his attorney, who in turn advised him that he ‘didn’t have to plead guilty and could have a jury trial.’ ” (n. 2 Majority Opinion). The majority then approves and applies to the facts herein the statement from Turner v. Maryland, 318 F.2d 852, 854 (4 Cir. 1963), that the evidence “demonstrated beyond doubt that the accused in fact had no information to communicate to the lawyer which could have been helpful to the defense.” As I read the record, however, Hart did not testify that he “admitted his guilt to his attorney,” nor does the evidence demonstrate that Hart had no information which could have been helpful to his defense.
Hart testified that he told his attorney, “I was guilty for they had my name on the check.” Assuming, however, as appears likely, that Hart was charged with fraudulently issuing a check upon insufficient funds under Section 61-3-39 of the West Virginia Code, such offense is far from established by the fact, standing alone, that one’s name appears on the check. The elements of the offense are several and include:
(1) The drawing or delivering to another of a check;
(2) The check being drawn on insufficient funds;
(3) The check being used to obtain something of value, which was in fact obtained;
(4) With knowledge that the check is being drawn on insufficient funds;
(5) With intent to defraud; prima facie evidence of this element is established by evidence of the drawing of a check with knowledge that it is being drawn on insufficient funds, unless before indictment the drawer makes restitution.
It thus appears that Hart “admitted his guilt” only as to the first element listed above; and the evidence indicates that his appointed counsel made no attempt to explain the additional elements to Hart or to investigate them in any manner. “Of course, it is not for a lawyer to fabricate defenses, but he does have an affirmative obligation to make suitable inquiry to determine whether valid ones exist.” Jones v. Cunningham, supra, 313 F.2d 347, 353.
An additional responsibility of his attorney, since Hart was apparently entering his guilty plea to avoid prosecution as a recidivist, was to investigate the validity of the prior conviction upon which the recidivist charge would have been based. Again, it would appear from the evidence that this responsibility was not met. I believe the following language is appropriate in this case.
“We cannot acquiesce in the suggestion that because [the defendant] told his court-appointed attorney that he was guilty there was nothing else for the lawyer to do but to plead him guilty and hope for a light sentence. As we have just indicated, avenues of defense remained open, and the manifest failure to seek them out is chargeable to counsel or the lateness of the appointment, or both, not to [the defendant].” Jones v. Cunningham, supra, 313 F.2d at 352.
The majority’s conclusion that Hart’s guilty plea was “entered as an intelligent trial tactic, [and] is thus insulated from attack” is not persuasive. To characterize the “trial tactic” as “intelligent” is to beg the question here presented. If in fact Hart was not effectively counseled and represented his guilty plead was not “intelligent.”
The violation of Hart’s constitutional rights at the 1949 proceeding appears obvious. If .the decision in this case were based thereon, it would be unneces*147sary to resort to the protection claimed by the majority to be afforded here by the provisions of the Eighth Amendment. An unseemly clash between the federal constitution and the provisions of a state statute, as applied, would thus be avoided. By proceeding as it does, I believe the majority is unnecessarily deciding an eighth amendment issue, voiding the application of a state statute unnecessarily and, in short, reaching beyond the well established bounds imposed upon the federal judiciary by principles of self-restraint, comity, and the wise exercise of discretion in the uses of judicial power. In addition thereto, assuming, which I do not, that the eighth amendment issue may properly be reached I disagree with my brothers’ decision for the reasons hereinafter stated.
THE EIGHTH AMENDMENT
As conceded by the majority, the West Virginia habitual offender statute has been upheld by the Supreme Court against due process and equal protection claims. Oyler v. Boles, 368 U.S. 448, 82 S.Ct. 501, 7 L.Ed.2d 446 (1962); Graham v. West Virginia, 224 U.S. 616, 32 S.Ct. 583, 56 L.Ed. 917 (1912). The majority seeks to avoid the impact of these cases on the principle that “a con-cededly valid statute may be applied in a particular case in such a way as to violate constitutional provisions.” I would urge, however, that while this principle is certainly a valid one it has no application here.
The principle is well stated in Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356, 373-374, 6 S.Ct. 1064, 1073, 30 L.Ed. 220 (1886):
“Though the law itself be fair on its face and impartial in appearance, yet, if it is applied and administered by public authority with an evil eye and an unequal hand, so as practically to make unjust and illegal discrimina-tions between persons in similar circumstances, material to their rights, the denial of equal justice is still within the prohibition of the constitution”
West Virginia’s recidivist statute provides that anyone who has been convicted three separate times of offenses punishable by confinement in a penitentiary shall be sentenced to be confined in the penitentiary for life. W.Va.Code § 61-11-18 (1966). The sentence to be imposed is mandatory. There is no room for it to be “applied and administered by public authority with an evil eye and an unequal hand,” nor opportunity for “unjust and illegal discriminations between persons in similar circumstances.” The statute is constitutional on its face, and twice the Supreme Court has said that it is. The statutory requirement that a life sentence be imposed insures uniform application and prevents any abuse of discretion by the trial judge. The only discretion involved is that of the prosecutor in deciding whether to proceed against a particular defendant under the recidivist statute, and the conscious exercise of some selectivity in enforcement of the statute was upheld in Oyler v. Boles, supra, 368 U.S. 448, 82 S.Ct. 501, 7 L.Ed.2d 446. It appears that the majority is deciding that the state judge must decide on a case-by-case basis whether the mandatory life sentence is disproportionate and that the nature of the crimes involved in the prior convictions is properly to be considered in determining the sentence. This is precisely what the statute does not permit. By requiring such action by the state judge the statute is nullified just as certainly as ir ruled unconstitutional on its face.
Assuming, without conceding, that the constitutionality of the application of the West Virginia recidivist statute may properly be considered and determined on a ease-by-case basis, I do not agree that the statute was applied unconstitutionally in the instant case. In determining that Hart’s sentence was disproportionate to his offenses the majority *148points out that the offense in 1949 was writing a check on insufficient funds for $50.00, which is the statutory cut-off point (see fn. 1, Majority Opinion), and had the check been for one penny less, the offense could not have been used to support his recidivist conviction since the punishment therefor would not have been confinement in a penitentiary. My brothers conclude that the “bad check case was very nearly trivial.” But, if $50.00 is “very nearly trivial,” may not $50.01 be similarly characterized? And if $50.01 may be so described may not $200.00, $500.00, or $1,000.00? There is no end to such reasoning. There must be a cut-off point someplace and that point has been fixed by the pertinent statute. In my view, the fact that Hart’s bad check in 1949 was for only $50.00, rather than more, has no proper place in considering whether he was constitutionally sentenced as an habitual offender.
The majority recognizes that courts have emphasized the element of violence and danger to the person in assessing the gravity of an offense, and states, “None of Hart’s offenses were against the person. None involved violence or danger of violence toward persons or property.” This is technically true. But Hart’s perjury was committed during the trial of his son on a murder charge, one of the most serious and cold-blooded crimes, usually accompanied by violence. The majority characterizes Hart’s situation as “a moral dilemma: to choose between his duty to tell the truth and family loyalty.” In his perjured testimony Hart was deliberately attempting to obstruct justice and to prevent the conviction of his son on a charge of murder in the first degree. Hart’s counsel might have presented an appealing argument to the jury based on “family loyalty,” but it has no place in the consideration of this appeal.
I now advert to a decision this day handed down by this same panel in Wood, Appellant, v. State of South Carolina et al., Appellees, 483 F.2d 149. That appeal was from the district court’s denial of habeas corpus relief to a South Carolina prisoner who was convicted on his pleas of guilty to two counts of an indictment, each count charging him with making an obscene telephone call in violation of S.C.Code Ann. § 16-552.1 (Supp.1971). Wood was sentenced to a term of five years’ imprisonment on each count, the sentences to run concurrently. Under the applicable statute Wood could have been sentenced to a maximum term of ten years on each count. Until the South Carolina statute was amended in 1967, the maximum term of imprisonment for that offense was six months.
In Wood, supra, we were confronted with the issue as to whether the sentences imposed were so disproportionate to the offenses as to constitute cruel and unusual punishment prohibited by the Eighth Amendment. We referred to the ten-year maximum for the statutory offense as “rather startling,” stated that the sentencing judge was doubtless influenced by Wood’s prior criminal record which included convictions for larceny and automobile theft, but we found no disproportionality and no violation of the Eighth Amendment. I joined my brothers in affirming in that case the denial of habeas corpus relief.
So, in Wood, we concluded that a sentence of imprisonment for five years for making a lewd or obscene telephone call was not excessive since it was within the limits fixed by the statute. If, as suggested, the sentencing judge may have taken into consideration Wood’s prior record of convictions for larceny and automobile theft, the record offenses were not necessarily crimes of violence and we had no information concerning the circumstances surrounding the commission of the crimes or the dollar value of the property stolen in either instance.
On the other side of the coin, in the case at bar the majority would strike *149down the mandatory sentence imposed under the West Virginia recidivist stattute but does not indicate any fixed formula or standard which would serve as a guide as to when and under what circumstances the mandatory life sentence is excessive, a sentence fixed by the West Virginia legislature as the penalty for repeaters or the habitual criminals who have been convicted of three separate felonies and have thus demonstrated a tendency to persist in the commission of crime. The majority simply finds it excessive here. Is it because of the “nearly trivial” bad check conviction ?2 Is it because the convictions did not involve crimes of violence? Is it because, in their wisdom, legislatures in other states may have fixed • lesser penalties for recidivists t Would a mandatory sentence of imprisonment for a specified term of years, rather than a life sentence, for a given number of felony convictions be deemed excessive and, if so, what limits would be accepted as reasonable? How about three convictions for lewd and obscene telephone calls? How many states provide a possible maximum term of ten years’ imprisonment for one obscene telephone call? The questions arising are innumerable; but, to me, the majority leaves them unanswered and to be determined on a case-by-case basis. Thus, the statute is being effectively devitalized and the West Virginia state courts, charged with the duty to follow the statutory law with respect to the imposition of sentences, will be faced with a dilemma in every case of recidivism.
I think my brothers will concede that there is a paucity of authority bearing upon the Eighth Amendment and that its application to the severity of prison sentences has never definitely and conclusively been determined. I am very much disturbed when I think of the chaos which may result from this decision. With all due respect to my brothers, for whom I have the highest personal regard, I feel impelled to note my disagreement.

. It appears likely that Hart’s memory as to liis conversation with counsel was accurate in this respect. The attorney testified :
. [I]t was a common practice for the prosecuting attorney, ... to indicate that if a defendant wished to plead guilty who had a prior conviction, that the prior conviction would not be placed against him, although it was not an expressed condition but was certainly implied, that if a defendant stood trial and was convicted that the previous conviction would be put against him; whereas if he pleaded guilty it would not
Q. Have you ever advised a defendant that a previous conviction would be used against him only if he stood trial and faced a jury?
A. I may have.
Q. On what basis would you do that?
A. On the prosecuting attorney’s representation to me that you are representing this man, that if he wants to plead guilty, we will forget his previous conviction and won’t add the additional five years. If we have to go to all the bother of trying the case, and he is found guilty, why then we will put the five years onto it.
I just repeated the message from the prosecuting attorney on different occasions.

. In our experience as practicing attorneys or, perhaps, trial judges, how many times have cases come to our attention where- it was known to the prosecutor that an accused had issued a veritable flood of bad checks but the prosecutor was satisfied to accept a plea of guilty as to one and dismiss the other charges? Is this not true with reference to multiple offenses of other types and kinds such as breaking and entering, robberies, and the like? What can an appellate court possibly know of the circumstances surrounding every recorded conviction?