Court Opinion

ID: 9446426
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-03 21:53:44.535398+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:30:38.436422
License: Public Domain

DENMAN, Circuit Judge
(dissenting on several jurisdictional grounds and on the merits if jurisdiction exists).
A. The District Court lacked, jurisdiction to proceed to sentence Bridges because he was never arraigned on and did not plead guilty to the indictment returned by the grand jury.
Though Bridges nowhere raises the • contention, we are required to entertain it as if in a writ of error coram nobis, the absence of a plea of guilty being an error “of the most fundamental character ; that is, such as rendered the proceeding irregular and invalid.” United States v. Mayer, 235 U.S. 55, 69, 35 S.Ct. 16, 19, 59 L.Ed. 129; and see United States v. Morgan, 346 U.S. 502, 74 S.Ct. 247, 98 L.Ed. 248.
The number of Bridges’ indictment in the District Court was 33,917. He never pleaded guilty to that indictment, the transcript record showing that on arraignment before the District Court he pleaded guilty to an entirely different indictment, No. 33,817. The colloquy is shown by the reporter’s typed transcript to which he certifies “that the foregoing transcript * * * is a true and correct transcript of the matter therein contained.” It is as follows:
“The Clerk: In case 33817, Fred Bridges, do you withdraw your former plea of not guilty to counts one, two and three of this indictment?
“Defendant Bridges: Yes.
“The Court: The plea is ‘yes’, guilty?
“Mr. Sullivan: As to his—
“The Clerk: Withdrawal. What is your plea, Fred Bridges, to counts one and two of this indictment, guilty or not guilty?
“Defendant Bridges: Guilty.”
[Emphasis added.]
This court assumes that this is a typing error of the reporters in transcribing the reporter’s notes and hence despite the certificate to the contrary, we must assume that the clerk’s question in fact was:
“In case 33,917, Fred Bridges, do you withdraw * * *
“What is your plea, Fred Bridges, on counts one and two of this indictment, guilty or not guilty?” [Emphasis added.]
Since the burden of proof is on the government we are obliged to assume the exact contrary, i.e., that what the certified typed record shows is the truth and that Bridges’ pleading of guilty is not to Indictment 33,917 but to another indictment with which he is not concerned.
The fact that the question concerning indictment 33,817 was put by the clerk does not make it a clerical mistake. It *622would be as ineffective when asked by the judge as when asked by the clerk. There well may have been a clerical error by the stenographer when he typed the testimony but that cannot be assumed. It is up to the government to prove that the stenographer’s certificate is untrue by motion in the District Court under F.R. Criminal P. 36. Lohman v. United States, 6 Cir., 237 F.2d 645, 647. Nowhere has it done so.
The fact that the parties later treated the plea of guilty as valid does not create jurisdiction to sentence Bridges where the certified record shows he has not pleaded guilty to the crime for which he is purported to be sentenced.
B. The District Court, in a § 2255 proceeding, has no jurisdiction to consider the validity of a second five-year sentence where, as here, the moving party admits he is legally confined under a previous five-year sentence and does not seek release from custody.
Bridges’ two sentences were for violations of two different statutes, the sentence on Count One being for violation of the Harrison Narcotics Act (26 U.S.C. §§ 2553, 2557) and that on Count Two for the violation of the Jones-Miller Act (21 U.S.C. § 174). Each requires the proof of facts different from the other.
What is here in question is the jurisdiction of the District Court in a § 2255 proceeding when on February 13, 1957 it denied Bridges’ motion “to vacate and set aside or run concurrent the illegal portion of the sentence imposed under count two of the indictment” in the following language:
“It is ordered that said motion to vacate and set aside that portion of the sentence imposed on count 2 of the Indictment be, and the same is hereby denied.” [Emphasis supplied.]
Not only is it not contended that Bridges’ then custody under the sentence on count one is invalid, but on the contrary its validity is admitted by Bridges and he contends that the sentence on count 2 should run concurrent with that on count l.1
It is hence obvious that the District Court had no jurisdiction in a § 2255 proceeding to consider the validity of the successive sentence on the second count.
Nothing could be clearer than the law of this circuit which is that the District Court has no jurisdiction in a § 2255 proceeding to determine anything other than a prisoner’s claim for the immediate release from custody, which that section requires in its provision that only
“A prisoner in custody * * * claiming the right to be released * * * may move the court which imposed the sentence to vacate, set aside or correct the sentence.”
The first of our decisions on the limited jurisdiction of the act is Crow v. United States, 9 Cir., 186 F.2d 704 in which, as here, the validity of a second consecutive sentence was sought to he determined by one confined on the first of the consecutive sentences. In an able opinion written by Judge Lemmon we stated, at page 706:
“Since the motion under Section 2255 was designed to provide a direct attack in place of collateral attack under habeas corpus, it is logical to conclude that the intent of Congress was to limit the scope of relief under it to that on habeas corpus. Relief under habeas corpus is limited to release from present detention. It is not available to test the legality of threatened detention. It does not lie to secure a judicial decision which, even if determined in the prisoner’s favor, would not result in his immediate release [McNealy v. Johnston, 9 Cir., 100 F.2d 280].”
This was followed by Lopez v. United States, 9 Cir., 186 F.2d 707; Oughton v. United States, 9 Cir., 215 F.2d 578, cer-tiorari denied 352 U.S. 975, 77 S.Ct. 373, 1 L.Ed.2d 328 ; Williams v. United States, 9 Cir., 236 F.2d 894, 897; Hoffman v. *623United States, 9 Cir., 244 F.2d 378, and Toliver v. United States, 9 Cir., 249 F.2d 804. Yet none of our many decisions is mentioned or considered in the majority opinion.
As to Judge Fee’s statement that Bridges did not understand to what counts he pleaded and hence the merits can be considered as to both counts in this § 2255 proceeding, it is contrary to the record.
Bridges’ motion clearly admits his violation of the first count. It would be a hyper-absurdity to say that one convicted of a crime cannot plead that he is guilty of it or that the court to which he makes such a plea cannot make it the basis of its opinion.
Though the question of jurisdiction protrudes like the sore thumb of conventional speech, the concurring opinion accounts for the court’s opinion’s failure to .consider the decisions respecting it by the following extraordinary reasoning:
“The contention that the motion must be dismissed is not made by Bridges, but appears only in the dissent.”
That is to say, jurisdiction exists until Bridges, who is invoking it, moves to dismiss because it does not exist. This being the law, how absurd the contention of the Supreme Court of the United States in Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co. v. Willard, 220 U.S. 413, at page 419, 31 S.Ct. 460, at page 462, 55 L.Ed. 521, that although the question of jurisdiction has ■not been raised by the parties “[I]t is firmly established by many decisions that in every case pending in an appellate Federal court of the United States, the inquiry must always be whether, under the Constitution and laws .of the United States, that court or the court of original jurisdiction could take cognizance of the case. The leading authority on the subject is Mansfield, C. & L. M. Railway Co. v. Swan, 111 U.S. 379, 382, 4 S.Ct. 510, 28. L.Ed. 462, where the cases are fully reviewed.” [Emphasis supplied.]
A further completely unwarranted statement of the concurring opinion to explain Bridges’ instant second § 2255 proceeding is:
“His present motion, founded on the idea that the sentence on one count or the other has expired, seems to be an attempt to avoid the argument that a previous motion upon similar grounds has already been denied.” [Emphasis supplied.]
The judgment on the two counts was entered on March 15, 1955. Bridges’ present § 2255 motion was filed but a year and ten months later on January 14, 1957. Assuming that he had earned all his possible good time allowances on either five-year sentence, that is (a) of eight days per month of good conduct time under 18 U.S.C. § 4161 for the 22 months prior to the filing of the motion and (b) the three days per month of industrial good time for the first year under 18 U.S.C. § 4162 and also under § 4162(c) five days per month for the next 10 months of the succeeding year until he filed the motion, the total of 176 days plus the 36 days plus the 50 days is but 262 days. Adding these 262 days, or less than nine months, to the 22 months served makes a total of less than 31 months credited to him against the 60 months of the sentence. With the keen intelligence credited to Bridges by the court’s opinion it is absurd to contend that Bridges could have founded his motion “on the idea that the sentence on one count or the other had expired.”
At the summit of all the absurdities in this § 2255 proceeding the majority agrees with Bridges that he is now confined by the first sentence which is valid and then assumes the jurisdiction to consider whether the second sentence is valid.
.• C. There are no further facts creating jurisdiction to consider the motion as a coram nobis proceeding under United States v. Morgan, 846 U.S. 502, 507, 512, 74 S.Ct. 247, 98 L.Ed. 248, where the setting aside of one conviction would have caused a lighter sentence on a subsequent conviction. Here Bridges was proved to have two prior convictions, one for assault to commit murder with a three-year *624sentence and another for burglary with a one-year sentence.
D. Assuming jurisdiction to exist, the opinion of the Court clearly violates the mandatory Rule 11 of the F.R. Criminal P., providing in part:
“A defendant may plead not guilty, guilty or, with the consent of the court, nolo contendere. The court may refuse to accept a plea of guilty, and shall not accept the plea without first determining that the plea is made voluntarily with understanding of the nature of the charge. * * * ” [Emphasis added.]
Instead of Bridges pleading guilty “with an understanding of the nature of the charge” it “fairly appears” that the plea “was made under same misstatement or misapprehension” from the quoted matter in this Court’s footnote 3, supra, as follows:
“The Clerk: In case 33817, Fred Bridges, do you withdraw your former plea of not guilty to counts one, two and three of this indictment ?
“Defendant Bridges: ‘Yes.’
“The Court: The plea is ‘yes’, guilty?
“Mr. Sullivan: 'As to his’—
“The Clerk: ‘Withdrawal. What is your plea, Fred Bridges, to counts one and two of this indictment, guilty or not guilty’ ?
“Defendant Bridges: ‘Guilty.’
“Mr. Sullivan: ‘Same transaction.’
“The Court: ‘The other counts may be dismissed. You have had the advice of your attorney, Mr. Sullivan, in this matter, have you?’
“Mr. Sullivan: ‘Yes, your Honor. Talked to him.’

“Defendant Bridges: ‘Yes, Judge, your Honor, I understand I am pleading to one count.’

“Mr. Sullivan: ‘One transaction. Well, it is one transaction, Mr. Bridges. It is simply as I told you before, two different statutes, that’s all.’
“The Court: ‘There isn’t any question in his mind’?
“Mr. Sullivan: ‘No, not at all, your Honor.’ ” [Emphasis added.]
It is obvious that the judge regarded the negro as not a person with a clear, understanding mind because after his first statement that he pleaded guilty to the first and second counts the Court asked Bridges, “You have had the advice of your attorney, Mr. Sullivan, in this matter, have you ?” Bridges’ reply, “Yes, Judge, Your Honor, I understand I am pleading to one count” could only mean that his first plea was made “with the understanding that the nature of the charge” was that it imposed but one sentence.
The judge’s doubt that Bridges clearly understood what was going on is again expressed in his question to the attorney “There isn’t any question in his [Bridges’] mind?” To which the reply of the attorney, “No, not at all,” is not the determining thing as to whether Bridges realized that his statements meant that he understood that he would be subject to two prison sentences. That could have been resolved only by the direct question to Bridges, “Do you realize that you have pleaded guilty to two counts instead of one and that you may be sentenced to two terms of imprisonment?”
Rule 11 was preceded by the statement of the law in Smith v. O’Grady, 1941, 312 U.S. 329, 334, 61 S.Ct. 572, 574, 85 L.Ed. 859, that in considering the validity of a plea of guilty “real notice of the true nature of the charge against him [is] the first and most universally recognized requirement of due process.”
Relying on Smith v. O’Grady, the Eighth Circuit in Bergen v. United States, 145 F.2d 181, at page 187, permitted the withdrawal of a plea of guilty, saying:
“We think it may be gathered from all of the cases that an accused is entitled to withdraw a plea of guilty if it fairly appears that he was in ignorance of his right and of *625the consequence of his act, or if it appears that the plea was made under some mistake or misapprehension. The withdrawal should not be denied where a proper showing for its allowance is made, merely because the defendant on a trial might or probably would be found guilty. While the burden is on the accused to show cause for the change of his plea, the court’s discretion should be exercised liberally, so as to promote the ends of justice and to safeguard the life and liberty of the accused, especially where the defendant is without the advice of counsel and his motion is seasonably made. And, in any case, 0the motion should not be denied where it is evident that the ends of justice would best be served by granting it.” [Emphasis added.]
Relying directly on Rule 11 of the Seventh Circuit in United States v. Davis, 212 F.2d 264, a § 2255 proceeding in essence identical with the present case, ordered the withdrawal of a plea of guilty. There the moving convicted man, like Bridges, had three indictments against him for violation of the narcotics laws. Like Bridges, he had an attorney. The latter pleaded guilty to two of the indictments and a third was dismissed. The § 2255 motion was made by another attorney and alleged at page 266:
“ * * * that he permitted the plea of guilty to be entered in reliance upon the representation of his attorney that the indictment charged him with a conspiracy and not with substantive offenses; that he was under a misconception as to the nature of the charges against him; that he was thus misled and deceived by his attorney; that, therefore, his plea of guilty was not entered voluntarily, and accordingly the judgment is void.”
The opinion continues:
“It is not open to doubt that the defendant’s motion alleges matters of a serious and substantial character. ‘Real notice of the true nature of the charge against him’ is a right granted to the accused by the Constitution and it is indispensable to a valid plea. Smith v. O’Grady, 312 U. S. 329, 334, 61 S.Ct. 752, 85 L.Ed. 859. Where it fairly appears that a plea of guilty ‘was made under some mistake or misapprehension’ the accused should be permitted to withdraw it. Bergen v. United States, 8 Cir., 145 F.2d 181, 187. This principle is clearly implied in Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, 18 U.S.C. : * * * This rule is stated in mandatory language and the court is not relieved of the duty which it imposes solely because the accused, as here, is represented by counsel of his choice. The rule is simply and concisely stated, and it makes no such exception.” [Emphasis ours.]
Not only were none of these cases considered, but the court’s opinion shows that it did not consider Rule 11 at all. It does not recognize that it required the court to determine whether the record showed that the plea of guilty was made under a misapprehension due to no wrongful act of any one and that the court’s discretion should be exercised “liberally” in determining whether the motion should be granted.
Instead of construing Bridges’ statements liberally to determine whether he misunderstood what he had stated the opinion assumes that the plea of guilty may be set aside only where it “has been induced or procured by trick, artifice or device.”
If this dissent be correct in its contention that the Court lacks jurisdiction in this § 2255 proceeding because Bridges admits guilt on one count on which he is confined and does not seek release therefrom, the District Court should be reversed and the motion ordered dismissed. If jurisdiction exists and the plea of guilty does not satisfy the requirements of Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11 then the judgment should be reversed and the District Court ordered to set aside the plea and proceed for a plea properly made. If all the above be ig*626nored the decision should be reversed and remanded to determine whether Bridges ever pleaded at all to the charges of indictment No. 33917 and if he did not the judgment against him should be set aside and he should be required to plead.

. Nowhere in his briefs here does he contend he should he released from custody.