Court Opinion

ID: 9454041
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 18:33:41.495353+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:33:56.369987
License: Public Domain

KILEY, Circuit Judge
(dissenting;.
I respectfully dissent. I agree that generally the record of a trial court cannot be impeached in a habeas corpus proceeding, and that the petitioner ought to first seek to correct the record by appropriate proceeding in the sentencing court. But that rule presupposes a record “fair upon its face,” Braun v. United States, 16 F.2d 118 (9th Cir. 1926), and a petitioner making a claim inconsistent with the record, Riddle v. Dyche, 262 U.S. 333, 336, 43 S.Ct. 555, 67 L.Ed. 1009 (1923).
However, in the case before us, there is in evidence the judge’s handwritten docket entry of the 1931 Sterling trial which does not state that attorney Missimore was in attendance when Sterling pleaded guilty. There are typewritten notes, author not disclosed, of the Sterling trial indicating that Missimore was present; and the mittimus of November 25, 1931, certified by the circuit court clerk, which has stricken the word “attended” before “by counsel” and has the word “unattended” typed in.
Admittedly, the mittimus is not part of the common law record, but the record itself cannot be said to be “fair on its face” with respect to whether Sterling’s attorney was present when the guilty plea was entered. And if the attorney was not present, Sterling was denied a constitutional right which “ousted” the circuit court of jurisdiction. In Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U.S. 458, 58 S.Ct. 1019, 82 L.Ed. 1461, 146 A.L.R. 357 (1938), the court held that under the Sixth Amendment a federal court did not have jurisdiction to hear a criminal case where the defendant was not represented by *429counsel. This rule was applied against the states through the Fourteenth Amendment in Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335, 83 S.Ct. 792, 9 L.Ed.2d 799, 93 A.L.R.2d 733 (1963). In United States ex rel. Craig v. Myers, 329 F.2d 856 (3d Cir. 1964) the court applied the Gideon rule retroactively in a habeas corpus proceeding. Therefore Sterling’s petition claimed a want of jurisdiction and accordingly the district court could “look beyond the record of his conviction * * * to test the jurisdiction of the state court to proceed to judgment against him.” Frank v. Mangum, 237 U.S. 309, 331, 35 S.Ct. 582, 588, 59 L.Ed. 969 (1915).
In Williams v. Huff, 79 U.S.App.D.C. 31, 142 F.2d 91 (1944), the record showed the “boy” petitioner was advised of his right to counsel, asked whether he wanted counsel, and said he did not. But, because the record did not show the boy’s waiver was competent and intelligent, the court reversed the judgment dismissing the habeas proceeding. In Thomas v. Hunter, 153 F.2d 834 (10th Cir. 1946), the record specifically recited that at sentencing petitioner was represented by counsel. This, said the court, precluded parol testimony to the contrary. But because the record was silent as to the attorney’s presence when verdict was returned, the court — anticipating Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335, 83 S.Ct. 792, 9 L.Ed.2d 799, 93 A.L.R.2d 733 (1963) — decided that petitioner should have been given an opportunity to prove his allegation that his attorney was not present at that stage of the trial, and remanded for further proceedings.
Here the common law record is ambiguous. Sterling alleges denial of a constitutional right which goes to the integrity of the trial, and the alleged denial raises a jurisdictional question. In United States ex rel. Baldridge v. Pate, 371 F.2d 424 (7th Cir. 1966) — a case similar to the one now before us— we noted, in absolving petitioner of any expense in the hearing ordered, “the apparent failure so far of the state [Illinois] court records to determine the issue conclusively.”
In my view the district court properly considered parol testimony on the issue here, and was within its discretion — on the testimony here — in determining credibility questions in favor of Sterling.
I would accordingly affirm.