Court Opinion

ID: 9457265
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 20:17:27.431169+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:35:17.160974
License: Public Domain

PELL, Circuit Judge
(dissenting).
John Kirk, who was convicted by a jury in November of 1966 of selling heroin, is now to be brought before the district court again for resentencing because of non-compliance by the district judge with the newly adopted Rule 32 (a) (2), Fed.R.Crim.P., requiring that the convicted defendant be advised of his right to appeal and of his further right, if he is unable to pay the cost of appeal, to seek leave to appeal in forma pauperis. I must respectfully dissent from the majority decision which seems to me to be an undue extension of the plain purpose of the rule.
I do not quarrel with the analysis of the new rule as set forth in 2 Wright, Federal Practice and Procedure § 528, at 425-26 (1969):
“This requirement of Rule 32(a) (2) imposes a mandatory duty on the court. If the court fails to advise defendant as required by the rule, and no timely appeal is taken, the appellate court will vacate the sentence and remand the case for resentencing, at *752which time defendant can be properly-advised of his right to appeal.” (Emphasis supplied.)
Here in contradistinction to Rodriquez v. United States, 395 U.S. 327, 89 S.Ct. 1715, 23 L.Ed.2d 340 (1969), a timely appeal was in fact and in law taken. When the notice of appeal was filed by the retained counsel the omission of the district judge could not be, in my opinion, other than harmless error.
That the appeal was initiated in good faith'and for the purpose of having the conviction reviewed is evidenced by the subsequent securing of an extension of time for filing the record.
The fact that thereafter the appeal was dismissed by a three judge panel of this court following notice not only to the retained counsel but to the defendant himself should not be, in my opinion, the basis for converting what would clearly have been harmless error if the appeal had been pursued into cause for reversal.
The basic purpose of the rule obviously is to insure that the right of a convicted person to appeal is not lost through lack of being informed of the right. Here the purpose of the rule was realized when the appeal was timely taken.
Kirk contends that not being advised pursuant to Rule 32(a) (2) effectively denied him the right to a direct appeal. Since he did in fact initiate an appeal, the only remaining matter is that of a waiver of costs and fees involved in proceeding in forma pauperis.
Now four years later we find ourselves in the posture of speculating that the abandonment of a properly launched appeal may have flowed from a lack of knowledge of the right to proceed in forma pauperis.
Actually the defendant is in effect contending that the right to appeal was lost through unawareness of the right to appointment of counsel for an indigent. Indeed the majority opinion adverts to the right of counsel without expense. To give significance to the matter of appointed counsel in this case, irrespective of the later adopted and presumably not retroactive Rule 17 of this court, is to read into Rule 32(a) (2), Fed.R.Crim.P., a provision just plainly not there. The district judge would have fully complied with the rule then in effect by advising “the defendant of his right to appeal and of the right of a person who is unable to pay the cost of an appeal to apply for leave to appeal in forma pauperis.”
As Mr. Justice Harlan stated in his concurring opinion in Mackey v. United States, 401 U.S. 667, 91 S.Ct. 1160, 1171, 28 L.Ed.2d 404 (April 5, 1971):
“No one, not criminal defendants, not the judicial system, not society as a whole is benefited by a judgment providing a man shall tentatively go to jail today, but tomorrow and every day thereafter his continued incarceration shall be subject to fresh litigation on issues already resolved.”
Here Kirk although not advised expressly of his right of appeal, in fact had the right, accepted it and then applied it. This should be sufficient for finality.
Further, it is to be noticed that this point was first raised on appeal and respectable authority precludes its consideration here. See, e. g., United States v. Garafolo, 385 F.2d 200, 205 (7th Cir. 1967), vacated on other grounds, 390 U.S. 144, 88 S.Ct. 841, 19 L.Ed.2d 970 (1968); Austin v. United States, 334 F.2d 75, 76 (6th Cir. 1964); Holmes v. United States, 323 F.2d 430, 431 (7th Cir. 1963); United States v. Shelton, 249 F.2d 871, 874 (7th Cir. 1957).
The other principal contention of Kirk appears to be directed toward a monitored telephone conversation in which he relies on United States v. White, 405 F.2d 838 (7th Cir. 1969). White, of course, is now of no help to him in view of the Supreme Court’s reversal of that decision. 401 U.S. 745, 91 S.Ct. 1122, 28 L.Ed.2d 453 (April 5, 1971).
Other points raised both in the pro se brief and counsel’s brief appear to me to be without merit.