Court Opinion

ID: 9445800
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-03 21:38:22.793316+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:30:24.726950
License: Public Domain

LUMBARD, Circuit Judge
(dissenting).
Whether a defendant has been deprived of his constitutional rights in a state prosecution when, without counsel, he pleads guilty to a felony charge not punishable by death, depends upon whether under all the circumstances the proceedings were so fundamentally unfair as to result in an injustice. Uveges v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, 1948, 335 U.S. 437, 441, 69 S.Ct. 184, 93 L.Ed. 127; Bute v. People of State of Illinois, 1948, 333 U.S. 640, 670-677, 68 S.Ct. 763, 92 L.Ed. 986; Gallegos v. State of Nebraska, 1951, 342 U.S. 55, 72 S.Ct. 141, 96 L.Ed. 86. The federal courts will not intervene unless and until there has been a showing that the state court prosecution has been tainted with essential unfairness.
Our federal courts are sensitive to the consideration that they should not be too ready to interfere with the state’s primary function of administering its own system of criminal justice. Bute v. People of State of Illinois, supra. The mere fact that a defendant has not been represented by counsel is not enough to justify our review of the state court proceedings. This much the majority opinion concedes, citing Quicksall v. People of State of Michigan, 1950, 339 U.S. 660, 70 S.Ct. 910, 94 L.Ed. 1188. Nor is it enough that the defendant claims that he could not understand the charges and the consequences of his plea. Analysis of the decided cases shows that they have not been decided solely upon the basis of such lack of understanding. As Marcial’s petition alleges nothing more than this, and as there is no showing that there was any essential ingredient of unfairness in Marcial’s treatment, I am constrained to dissent.
Taking what was in the record before the District Court, we find the following: On October 10, 1934 Marcial was indicted for robbery in the first degree, grand larceny in the second degree and assault in the second degree. To these charges by reason of which he was placed in jeopardy for maximum sentences up to 40 years, Marcial pleaded not guilty. He was represented by assigned counsel at this stage of the case. Marcial further alleges that two weeks later, on October 24, his attorney, Joseph B. Margolin, moved that the plea be amended to “not guilty with a specification of insanity.” Marcial states that he objected to this amended plea and after a “brief period of disputation,” the length of which we are left to guess, Margolin ceased to represent him.
*670Marcial states that on December 17, 1934, without counsel he “accepted a proffered plea of Robbery in the Second Degree.” At that time Marcial, according to his petition, was 22 years old, and had had only a meager education, which did not go beyond the sixth grade. He alleges that he was “subnormal in intelligence” and that the “legalistic proceedings confronting were too complex for him to competently comprehend.”
Nowhere is there any allegation that Marcial was insane or of unsound mind at that time. On the contrary, he asserts that he was not insane at that time. As above stated, he seems to have thought that his assigned attorney should not have amended his original “not guilty” plea to one with specification of insanity. In Mareial’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus, filed in the District Court in June 1956, he cites not one single fact or circumstance which casts the slightest suspicion on his mental condition at any time of his life, either during the 22 years before he was introduced to the Kings County Court, or in the 22 years which have since intervened.
Unfortunately it is true that a large proportion of those who stand at the bar of criminal justice are of subnormal intelligence; that is undoubtedly one of the principal reasons why they find themselves there. This fact combined with their indigence and the inherent injustice and unfairness in expecting such unfortunates to defend themselves adequately against criminal charges accounts for the widely expressed concern that they be afforded legal aid. New York State, especially in the City of New York, has made giant strides in furnishing this aid through voluntary organizations such as the Legal Aid Society. But whether such legal aid is furnished or not, our federal courts have not undertaken, and in my view should not undertake, to review state court proceedings in years long gone by, merely because the defendant alleges that he was not able to cope with the legal complexities. Most college graduates of mature years would find these complexities quite beyond them. Indeed most lawyers would be baffled, and their brethren who ascend to the bench are seldom better off. Unless we are to reexamine every state case where no counsel appeared on the plea of guilty, we should draw the line, as we have till now, and inquire only into those cases where it appears that an injustice may have been done through overreaching due in some part to the inability of the accused to understand what was going on.
Here it would seem that there was a bargaining with the District Attorney on the plea, as Marcial states that he “accepted a proffered plea of Robbery in the Second Degree.” Thus it would appear that the two other counts were dropped and, instead of facing a maximum sentence of 40 years, Marcial faced a maximum of 15 years. He was in fact sentenced to from 7% to 15 years. Marcial having already had assigned counsel had chosen to go along without counsel. While it cannot be said on this record whether his bargain was fair or advantageous, there is no statement or claim regarding coercion or overreaching. Absent such coercion or overreaching, we should not reopen a state proceeding twenty-two years after the event, because the defendant lacked assistance he never requested even though he must have known it was available.
Nor should we give any weight to the fact that Marcial’s attorney, Margolin, caused Marcial to amend his plea to include a specification of insanity. Such a specification of insanity is well known to be an attempt to evade responsibility for the commission of crimes. Thus it seems to me that the fact of the amended plea is not entitled to any consideration in view of a record which is entirely barren of any supporting allegation.
Nor do I see how the majority can justify an inference of mental incompetence merely from the statement in the brief of the Attorney General that a lunacy commission was appointed pur*671suant to that version of § 658 of the New York Criminal Code which was in force in 1934.1 The fact is that we have no idea of the reason for appointment of the commission. The appointment took place after the plea of insanity and for all we know, the judge may have granted it merely because of that plea. But any speculation favorable to Marcial from the appointment alone is precluded by the fact that the commission found him “sane * * * at the present time * * ” an(j under New York law this means it found that he could “understand the proceedings and make his defense.” People v. Nyhan, Sup.Ct.Mon. 1916, 171 N.Y.S. 466, 467. Thus the very issue before us was before the commission. It found adversely to Marcial and I do not see how my brethren of the majority can rely on the fact that a commission was appointed for any inference favorable to the defendant on that very question. If anything, these facts would seem to indicate that the plea of not guilty with specification of insanity was a legal maneuver for which there was no basis.
Thus it is difficult to see what there is left for the District Court to do upon a hearing as only one outcome is possible on the basis of what is before us.2
To justify federal judicial interference, the majority cites three cases where it was held that the state should have provided counsel. A brief statement of each of these shows that Marcial’s petition bears not the slightest resemblance to the situations faced by the state court prisoners in those cases. In Commonwealth of Pennsylvania ex rel. Herman v. Claudy, 1956, 350 U.S. 116, 76 S.Ct. 223, 100 L.Ed. 126, a 21 year old defendant had been sentenced to from 17Y¡ to 35 years. He alleged that he was coerced into a confession after 72 hours of questioning. Without counsel to aid him and on demand of the prosecuting attorney, he pleaded guilty to 3 charges of burglary, 12 of larceny, 8 of forgery, and 2 of false pretense, thus subjecting himself, as Justice Black pointed out, to a maximum sentence of 315 years.
In Uveges v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, 1948, 335 U.S. 437, 69 S.Ct. 184, 93 L.Ed. 127, the petitioner alleged that when he was 17, without counsel, he pleaded guilty to 4 indictments charging 4 separate burglaries for which he could be sentenced to 80 years imprisonment. His sentence of from 20 to 40 years was reversed.
In Massey v. Moore, 1954, 348 U.S. 105, 75 S.Ct. 145, 99 L.Ed. 154, the state *672prisoner had been sentenced to life imprisonment for robbery. He stood trial without counsel and was convicted in a one day trial. For several months prior to his trial he had been confined to the psychopathic hospital of the state prison, part of the time in the part reserved for the most violent inmates. He was removed from a strait jacket only 4 days before his trial. After his conviction he attempted suicide and was recommitted to the psychopathic ward where he was confined for several months more.
The brief recital of these three recent Supreme Court decisions is enough to show that the actions of the states concerned reeked of probable injustice to such a degree that no society jealous of the safeguards of due process of law would permit the convictions to stand. As to Marcial there has been no showing to justify the intervention of the federal courts to reexamine what New York State did when he pleaded guilty without the assistance of counsel in 1934. Indeed Marcial chose to discharge his counsel and make his own bargain with the District Attorney. If we open the doors of the federal courts to Marcial, must we not do so in every case where an indigent defendant has pleaded guilty to felony charges without counsel? Such meddling would seriously, and in my opinion needlessly, disturb the administration of criminal justice in our state courts. Much as we may favor legal aid for the needy, especially when they are accused of serious crimes, we should leave these matters to the action and the conscience of the states, except where there is good reason to believe that a gross injustice may have resulted.
We should affirm the order of the District Court denying the writ of habeas corpus.
CLARK, Chief Judge, concurs in this opinion.

. The relevant parts of this section read as follows: “§ 658. Appointment of commission; their proceedings. When a defendant pleads insanity, as prescribed in section three hundred and thirty-six, the court in which the indictment is pending, instead of proceeding with the trial of the indictment, may appoint a commission of not more than three disinterested persons, to examine him and report to the court as to his sanity at the time of the commission of the crime.” Laws of 1910, Ch. 557, § 2.

. On many occasions we have approved district court orders dismissing state prisoner’s applications for writs of habeas corpus without a hearing where the record showed no likelihood of establishing the facts necessary to show a violation of due process at such a hearing, and we have done this although there was no prior state or federal hearing on the factual issue. These questions usually arise in motions for a certificate of probable cause under 28 U.S.C. § 2253, and our brief decisions per curiam granting or denying motions are normally not published. Among our more recent holdings on this point were United States ex rel. Jordan v. Martin, 2 Cir., 238 F.2d 623, and United States ex rel. Rheim v. Murphy, 2 Cir., June 13, 1957. We have applied the same-standard in appeals and motions involving federal prisoners. See, among others, United States v. Salzano, 2 Cir., 241 F.2d 849; United States v. Tacoma, 2 Cir., 176 F.2d 242; United States v. Page, 2 Cir., 229 F.2d 91. The ease of United States v. Dayman, 342 U.S. 205, 209, 219, 72 S.Ct. 263, 96 L.Ed. 232, does not state a different rule; there all parties conceded that a hearing was necessary if the procedure under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 was constitutional.