Alphonzo Edwards v. United States
256 F.2d 707
D.C. Cir.
1958
Check Treatment

*1 EDWARDS, Appellant, Alphonzo America, STATES

UNITED Appellee.

Nos. Appeals

United States Circuit. District Columbia

Argued Dec. 9,May

Decided Philip Kane, Al. Washington, Mr. D. (appointed by Court),

C. appel- lant. Paulson, Mr. Nathan J. S. Asst. U. Atty., Gasch, whom Messrs. with Oliver Atty., Joseph U. Carroll S. Lewis A.

Lowther, Attys., Asst. U. S. were on the brief, appellee. Before Wilbur K. Miller, Bazelon Judges. Burger, *2 relief year later, motion BURGER, Judge. filed a a chronological A 2255. under U.S.C. § charges Appellant pled guilty of rob- put helps facts of the statement perspective: bery, appeal proper prison. in and was sentenced to Over writing, hos- then Arrested, in orally, later confessed Dec. 1955— pitalized illness.1 withdrawal narcotic appeared hospital from Edwards release Dec. 1955—After hearing. Commissioner; preliminary waived U. S. (with co-de- separate indictments a in three Jan. 1956—Indicted separate fendant) robberies. for three appointed coun- request District defendant’s Jan. 1956—On sel. guilty plea entered. 1956—Not

Jan. guilty plea on withdrawn and entered 13, 1956—Not Feb. of assistance counsel. advice and with 16, 1956—Sentenced. Mar. under 2255. Later denied. vacate sentence

May 1, § 1957—Moved alleged (1) counsel, re- of itself in available motion described The last (3) motion,3 appeal illegal illegal arrest, questioning, view on a 2255 and the (2) § seizure, (4) improvident in- burden and is difficult. Mere search strategy, tactics, mistake, mo- bad careless- The counsel.2 of assistance effective necessarily hearing, inexperience on the ness or do not without tion was denied conclusively of coun- from amount to assistance grounds ineffective appeared no sel, entitled was record trial was unless taken as a whole the appeal in granted leave to relief. We “mockery justice.”4 specific The pauperis. forma allegations counsel met here are that only once, that allegations, with at Of four nothing latter, I can ineffective assistance told him “there is time jail. arraigned thought man should and committed to Thus 1. If it be (see ill, questioned no drunk Mal were narcotics we can assume there U.S.App.D.C. symptoms lory at the time of ar- withdrawal v. — raignment, , —, also be remem and we do not consider the F.2d it should (cid:127) — bered subject is of the the condition matter further. by questioning. indeed determined Taylor v. United 96 U.S. 3. Appellant’s alleged (assistance App.D.C. that he also 226 F.2d 337 motion suffering counsel); narcotics withdrawal from Smith was symptoms arraignment, U.S.App.D.C. at the time during incompetent denied 341 U.S. S.Ct. hence and was alleged (illegal proceeding, detention and further L.Ed. 1358 confession); com- White v. United knew this and coerced Commissioner hospital States, 1956, U.S.App.D.C. immedi- mitted seizure) ; arraignment. (illegal ately following The record F.2d 221 search States, 1950, appellant was cf. Newman v. United U.S.App.D.C. 419, arrested shows arraigned F.2d How- certio on December appear ever, appellant and the record rari denied 340 S.Ct. arrest). (illegal counsel discovered 95 L.Ed. 665 in Present error. argument) (after that arrest took oral 11th, Diggs Welch, 1945, place hospitalized was then on the 16th, 607, certiorari when he denied 325 until the ‘ alleges, you,” which, appellant defense, shows counsel to an conduct effective weighting considered counsel never because the accused does know enough case, con- nor due the facts said of the law to do himself. [sic] so preparation may *3 trial.” sideration While the accused have take the to Also, consequences into poor defense, may counsel “deluded” of he a nothing believing but there was to do at least the not his own. fault was guilty, not, plead guilty. and if did other pleads that But this is not so when he brought against charges own; him would be Here the deed is here there his baffling free “would never complexities and be are not the which again.” require lawyer illumination; a voluntarily understandingly made,6 But much counsel there was layman expect plea even a should a of might done, appellant us. have now tells guilty to be treated as an honest confes might argued illegality have Counsel the guilt sion of and waiver of a all defenses might to of the arrest and have moved known and unknown. And such the is illegal suppress evidence obtained plea guilty may law. A of not with illegal seizure, and confes search and drawn except after sentence to a correct 5 might agree counsel sions. We that injustice,”7 “manifest we find things, perhaps, have done these guided imagine injus to difficult how “manifest hindsight, things; other but except by proof tice” agree could be shown failure do was we do not that to so plea counsel as voluntarily such ineffective assistance of that the was not or un to But need not warrant new trial. we a derstandingly made,8 showing or a that ground, our decision on for an rest ignorant right defendant was of his stronger ground is even available. Certainly counsel.9 ineffective assistance counsel, ignorance opposed of of realized is It must be that this right counsel, the in an immaterial proof guilt depend of a case which attempt impeach plea guilty, cases, of ex upon In ed a trial. such ac the great usually cept perhaps on cused relies to extent that extent it bears 889, 1576, 2002; 32(d). 65 U.S. S.Ct. 89 L.Ed. 7. Fed.R.Crim.P. See Futterman States, 1945, States, 1952, U.S.App.D.C. see also Burton v. United 80 v. United 91 U.S.App.D.C. 208, 17, 331, 185; 151 F.2d 202 F.2d Carter v. United 789, 473, States, Cir., 1955, 563, denied 326 U.S. 66 S.Ct. 90 L. 5 224 F.2d va 479; Bishop States, 1955, 928, 301, Ed. v. United cated 350 U.S. 76 S.Ct. 100 L. 117, U.S.App.D.C. 582, 96 223 F.2d re Ed. 811. grounds 1956, manded on other 350 U.S. 440, 961, 11, supra; 76 S.Ct. 100 L.Ed. 835. 8. See Fed.R.Crim.P. note 6 Von Gillies, 1948, 708, Moltke v. 332 U.S. nothing confessions, 316, 309; Waley of The motion said S.Ct. ston, 1942, 92 L.Ed. v. John- argued any 101, 964, brief but the confes- U.S. S.Ct. 1302; O’Grady, 1940, sions obtained were because ob- L.Ed. Smith v. arraignment. Mallory 329, 859; tained before U.S. 01 S.Ct. 85 L.Ed. States, 1957, compare Motley 354 U.S. v. United Cir., 1956, 1 L.Ed.2d 1479. After oral S.Ct. 230 F.2d with Shelton argument Cir., 1957, it was discovered that the con- v. United 246 F.2d during obtained fessions been the reversed 356 U.S. 78 S.Ct. period incompetence, of claimed see note 2 L.Ed.2d 579. arguable supra, and so it was at least Gillies, 1948, the confessions were inadmissible 9. See Von Moltke v. 332 U.S. 309; this reason. We not know wheth- 68 S.Ct. 92 L.Ed. Evans Rives, knew U.S.App.D.C. er trial counsel this when ad- plea guilty. 633; vised the of Johnston, Parker v. D.C.N.D. Cal.1939, F.Supp. 829; cf. McNair v. requires 6. Fed.R.Crim.P. 18 U.S.C. accept the court certiorari denied 352 guilty determining “without first 77 S.Ct. 1 L.Ed.2d 368. voluntarily plea is made with understand- ing charge.” of the nature crime, thus, perhaps and unders on issues voluntariness evidence of his tanding.10 justice. defeat He heard to cannot be knowing plea voluntary, this end after a little doubt There seems to guilty. present guilty plea of in the Affirmed. allegation voluntary.11 case There is no plead was induced to by any police, prosecutor conduct of BAZELON, Judge (dissent- court, own counsel’s but ing). guilty. “bad” advice him induced *4 Appellant’s under 28 U.S.C. motion § This, however, out not itself make does alleged ap- 2255 that his District likewise involuntariness.12 It seems pointed counsel ineffective in had been understandingly plea clear the only lawyer that the met with him had argued may made. It once, guilty plead had him to be- advised guilty understandingly made when is not nothing he do for cause there was could is unaware of certain tech defendant him, neglected sup- had to move might very nical well defenses which pression of certain evidence obtained prosecutor’s job difficult more make the through police allegedly the an impossible put were he or even to did not search and seizure. charge motion The proof. However, we think “understand lawyer sup- seek failed to ingly” merely meaning of to refers the pression oral confes- of the and written charge, and to be the what acts amount sions. charge, ing guilty of the conse the thereto,13

quences pleading guilty us, Indeed, record, it reached the as evidentiary dilatory to rather or than confes- no reference to those contained years A after sen defenses.14 tencing refusal fact, arrest sions.1 In the date of the give latter could to effect to the days after the shown record was five injustice” scarcely be deemed “manifest proceed- the confessions. The record of Ap meaning 32(d). Rule within the ings before the United States Commis- try pellant do did does not gives the as sioner December that, charged. pleads He the act appellant’s of arrest. So does mo- date him, might have unknown to been par- both tion. So also the briefs of suppress truth to certain able to the ties. supra; Johnston, note 13. See Fed.R.Crim.P. 10. Parker v. D.C.N.D.Cal. See Gillies, 1948, 829; F.Supp. v. 332 U.S. Von Moltke cf. Hurst v. 309; Cir., 1950, L.Ed. Smith 68 S.Ct. Cir., F.2d v. 835. 925. transcript appel- 11. A at time taken the Sturm, See, appellant’s g., pled guilty e. United States v. 14. discloses that lant Cir., open pres- de F.2d in stated in court the counsel 100S, appellant (counsel) L.Ed. nied 339 U.S. 70 S.Ct. that he had ence 388; appellant juz-y right cf. and Moore v. United 1 1957, of his advised U.S.App.D.C. 412, appellant F.2d desired to trial but O’Carter, 504; guilty charges; v. D.C.S.D. United States the the Clerk F.Supp. formally separately appellant 544. Iowa asked guilty plea, he wished withdraw his Government’s brief states: “The 1. The declined to do. which Addition- any you ally, fails to reflect confes record Clerk asked “Are culpability pleading guilty you in as to sions admissions are ap- were obtained from the crimes no other reason?” to which questioned by police.” replied pellant “Yes, sir.” Welch, Diggs 12. certiorari denied 325 65 S.Ct. L.Ed.

7H however, argument, at- the report- After the AIRWAYS, PAN AMERICAN WORLD torney appointed we Inc., Petitioner, in ed us he had evidence found Commis- the files of the United States (1) had made BOARD, been

sioner that arrest CIVIL AERONAUTICS Respondent. 11, 1955; (2) appellant on December placed of Colum- had been District No. 13817. days Hospital for five bia General Appeals United States Court of symp- treatment of narcotic withdrawal District of Columbia Circuit. being toms, to the United taken Argued March police Commissioner; (3) the States May 22, Decided sending questioned him him before obtaining hospital, from him first an oral a written confession and then

one. police If it obtained is true that the *5 question- from

confessions ing suffering he so severe- him while was

ly symptoms from narcotic withdrawal days hospital require five treat- as brought could before

ment be committing magistrate, it would seem

clear would that such confessions not

admissible in evidence. inadmissible,

With the confessions

could well the Government against appellant. no case I am thus brought lawyer appoint- to ask: Did the ed for him to below advise assumption on the strong case, Government had without

conducting investigation which was appointee? our

conducted Or did knowledge guilty plea, despite advise a circumstances of the confession? If either, deprived

he did client was

effective assistance counsel. It thus plain me

seems is en- have his

titled to conviction set aside they reported are now

the facts are I would therefore

be. vacate order

denying appellant’s motion and remand the case to District Court a hear-

ing. hearing unnecessary

To the record shows relief,

to be entitled we have to believe the record

reason does facts, the true raises form

reflect above and administrative

substance conven- justice. above

ience