Court Opinion

ID: 9468142
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 02:06:03.919211+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:40:42.635008
License: Public Domain

PER CURIAM:
Petitioner Rennie Johnson appeals from an order of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, Henry Bramwell, J., which denied his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Johnson is currently imprisoned at the Eastern New York Correctional Facility, after his conviction in New York Supreme Court, Kings County, following a guilty plea, on one count of criminal weapons possession in the second degree and one count of attempted assault in the second degree.
When he pled guilty, Johnson admitted shooting at a police officer who stopped him and several co-defendants after they failed to stop their automobile at a red light. Johnson was then sentenced to from five to fifteen years on the weapons charge, and to a concurrent zero to four years on the assault charge. He appealed to the Appellate Division, arguing that his plea was not knowingly and intelligently entered and he was therefore denied due process; he also *752argued that under the circumstances his sentence was excessive and should be reduced. The Appellate Division affirmed without opinion, and leave to appeal to the New York Court of Appeals was later denied.
In his habeas petition, Johnson repeated his contention that his plea was not knowingly and intelligently entered. In support of this contention, Johnson alleged that he was misled by his attorney as to the sentence he would receive, and that the sentencing judge failed during the plea colloquy to advise him of the maximum sentence that he faced. Respondents replied that Johnson had failed to exhaust his state remedies. The district judge rejected this argument and, after examining the transcript of the plea colloquy and sentencing, found Johnson’s contention that he had been misled to be meritless. The judge also concluded that the failure of the state trial judge to advise Johnson of the maximum sentence that could be imposed as a result of his plea did not violate Johnson’s due process rights.
Appellees argue to us that Johnson has not exhausted his state remedies; they contend that there was no substantial evidence in the state record to support Johnson’s claims on state appeal, so that Appellate Division review of his claims on the merits was “impossible.” Johnson’s correct remedy, appellees urge, is to petition for a writ of coram nobis, and the continuing availability of this state remedy bars habeas relief. On the record before us, we find this argument unpersuasive. When Johnson raised his claims in his Appellate Division brief, appellees did not rely on the procedural argument now advanced. Although appellees alluded to the availability of coram nobis, they did not press the point, even as an alternative argument. In a recent case with a procedural history similar to that before us here, we held that where the State does not rely on a procedural bar in the Appellate Division, this court will not “guard[] state procedural rules more vigilantly than the State itself does.” Washington v. Harris, 650 F.2d 447, 452 (2d Cir. 1981). Under the circumstances, we feel that it is inappropriate to send this case back to the state courts for further consideration on the merits. Cf. Kelleher v. Henderson, 531 F.2d 78, 80-81 (2d Cir. 1976); U. S. ex rel. Leeson v. Damon, 496 ,F.2d 718, 720 — 21 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 419 U.S. 954, 95 S.Ct. 215, 42 L.Ed.2d 172 (1974).
Johnson argues that we should remand this case to the district court for a hearing, because the petition states valid claims that cannot be properly resolved on the record now before this court. Johnson cites Williams v. Smith, 591 F.2d 169, 172 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 442 U.S. 920, 99 S.Ct. 2845, 61 L.Ed.2d 289 (1979), and Jones v. United States, 440 F.2d 466 (2d Cir. 1971), for the proposition that the failure of a trial judge in a plea colloquy to advise a defendant of the maximum sentence he faces may deprive the defendant of knowledge of the consequences of his plea, thereby rendering it invalid. But Jones was a federal case, governed by Fed.R.Crim.P. 11, and the duties of state courts were expressly distinguished in Williams, see 591 F.2d at 172. Moreover, Williams held valid a plea entered under circumstances far less favorable to the defendant than the present ones; there, the defendant was affirmatively misled by the prosecutor and the state court itself regarding the maximum sentence he faced.
Johnson also cites Leeson, supra, for the. proposition that where counsel has misinformed a defendant as to his sentencing exposure, an allegation in a habeas petition of lack of knowledge requires a federal hearing into defendant’s actual knowledge. But Johnson’s claim about being misled by his attorney is belied by his own statement, on the record during the plea colloquy, that he had received no “promises as to a definite or specified period of imprisonment.” As the district judge observed, “[sjuch ‘representations of the defendant . .. constitute a formidable barrier in any subsequent collateral proceedings. Solemn declarations in open court carry a strong presumption of verity.’ Blackledge v. Allison, 431 U.S. 63, 73-74, 97 S.Ct. 1621, 1628-1629, 52 L.Ed.2d 136 (1977).” Johnson also relies on a sup*753porting affidavit of his co-defendant, Coaye. But Coaye has a personal interest in helping Johnson to attack his sentence, having been sentenced on the same plea, had the same attorney, and advanced a claim similar to Johnson’s in the Appellate Division.
Moreover, during the plea colloquy, the prosecutor stated on the record, with Johnson present, that “defendant had pled guilty to a crime in which mandatory time is provided by the law.” Also, when Johnson returned for sentencing, a co-defendant was sentenced immediately beforehand to fifteen years, the maximum possible sentence, on the assault charge. The court then reviewed Johnson’s probation report, and noted that the maximum sentence had been recommended for him, as well. He then sentenced Johnson. At no time during or after the sentencing of his co-defendant or himself did Johnson express any surprise at the sentences, or attempt to withdraw his plea. Indeed, Johnson’s habeas petition does not even allege that his decision to plead guilty would have been altered by fuller knowledge of the consequences of his plea, even though he would have had to establish this as a prerequisite to habeas relief under Williams, supra, and other decisions of this court, e. g., Caputo v. Henderson, 541 F.2d 979, 984 (2d Cir. 1976); Del Vecchio v. United States, 556 F.2d 106, 113 (2d Cir. 1977). Nor does Johnson meet our requirement, as set forth in United States v. Welton, 439 F.2d 824 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 404 U.S. 859, 92 S.Ct. 157, 30 L.Ed.2d 102 (1971), that “the defendant submit an affidavit of his attorney in support of his claim or his own affidavit giving a satisfactory explanation of why he cannot submit an affidavit from his attorney.” 439 F.2d at 826. Cf. also Del Vecchio, supra; United States ex rel. Roldan v. Follette, 450 F.2d 514, 517 (2d Cir. 1971). We also note that although Johnson was represented by counsel on this appeal, his brief did not explain the failure to provide in the district court an affidavit from his state court attorney, nor did it indicate that such an affidavit could in fact be obtained.
Although we agree with our dissenting brother that habeas petitions submitted by pro se litigants are liberally construed, the district court is not required to provide an evidentiary hearing to such litigants when their petitions do not raise issues sufficient to merit a hearing. United States ex rel. Spina v. McQuillan, 525 F.2d 813, 818 (2d Cir. 1975); United States ex rel. Marinaccio v. Fay, 336 F.2d 272, 274 (2d Cir. 1964); United States ex rel. Nixon v. Follette, 299 F.Supp. 253, 254-55 (S.D.N.Y. 1969). Having taken into account Johnson’s pro se status, we nevertheless find that on this record, the district court was not required to grant a hearing on Johnson’s habeas petition. We affirm the judgment of the district court.