FOSTER ET AL. v. ILLINOIS
No. 540
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued May 8, 1947. - Decided June 23, 1947.
332 U.S. 134
Briefs of amici curiae urging affirmance were filed by Eugene F. Black, Attorney General, Edmund E. Shepherd, Solicitor General, and Daniel J. O‘Hara, Assistant Attorney General, for the State of Michigan; and Sterry R. Waterman for the State of Vermont.
MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER delivered the opinion of the Court.
This is an original proceeding in the Supreme Court of Illinois by way of writ of error to test the validity of sentences of imprisonment following pleas of guilty. The Supreme Court of Illinois having affirmed the judgment, 394 Ill. 194, 68 N. E. 2d 252, we brought the case here, 329 U. S. 712, becausе of the importance of reviewing convictions where solid doubt is raised whether the requirements of due process have been observed.
On February 22, 1935, the petitioners were sentenced to confinement in the Illinois State Penitentiary, under the Illinois State indeterminate sentence law, after pleading guilty to an indictment charging them with burglary аnd larceny.
...
“The Court finds the ages of said defendants to be as follows, respectively, Nelson Foster 34 years old, George Payne, alias Elijah Jefferson 48 years....”
Eleven years later, on February 7, 1946, the petitioners asked the Supreme Court of Illinois for their discharge. Various state grounds were urged and rejected. Our sole concern is with thе claim “that the record in this case fails to show” a compliance with the
The considerations that guide the disposition of this case have been canvassed here in a series of recent opinions. The “due prоcess of law” which the
The rationale of this аpplication of due process was first expounded in Powell v. Alabama, 287 U. S. 45. In following that case our recent decisions have spoken of “the rule of Powell v. Alabama,” or “the requirements of Powell v. Alabama,” thereby indicating the essential scope of the doctrine. See Williams v. Kaiser, 323 U. S. 471, 476-77; Tomkins v. Missouri, 323 U. S. 485, 488. And so, in every case in which this doctrine was invoked and due process was found wanting, the prisoner sustained the burden of proving, or was prepared to prove but was denied opportunity, that for want of benefit of counsel an ingredient of unfairness actively operated in the process that resulted in his confinement. See Powell v. Alabama, supra, at 51, 53, 56, 57-58; Smith v. O‘Grady, 312 U. S. 329, 334; Williams v. Kaiser, supra, at 472, 473-74, and 476-77; Tomkins v. Missouri, supra, at 486-487; House v. Mayo, 324 U. S. 42, 45-46; White v. Ragen, 324 U. S. 760, 762-63; Rice v. Olson, 324 U. S. 786, 788-89. Only the other day, in a case concerning a charge of first-degree murder against a seventeen-year-old defendant, in which
In this case there is neither proof nor uncontradicted allegation of any such miscarriage of justice in accepting pleas of guilty. The record of the proceeding plainly imports an observance of due process. In the contemporaneous language of the trial court, the defendants “are advised of their rights of Trial and of the consеquences of an entry of a plea of guilty,” the court “advises and admonishes each of said defendants of the consequences of entering such pleas of guilty,” and the defendants thereafter still persisting, their pleas “are received and entered of record.” There was nothing in the common-law record, on the basis of which the Supreme Court of Illinois rendered its decision, to contradict this account of the proceedings in 1935. We thus have in effect the bald claim that, merely because the record does not disclose an offer of counsel to a defendant upon a plea of guilty, although the court before accepting the plea duly advised him of his “rights of Trial” and of the consequences of such a plea, he is “deprived of rights essential to a fair hearing under the Federal Constitution.” De Meerleer v. Michigan, supra, at 665.
We reject such a claim. Most incarcerations are upon pleas of guilty, and probably most such pleas have been made without the felt need of counsel. It is not for us to suggest that it might be desirable to offer to every accused who desires to plead guilty the opportunities for counsel and to enter with formality upon the record the deliberate disclaimer of his need for counsel because
Insofar as the sentences in this case are attacked on claims which wеre not open for consideration on the common-law record which alone was before the Illinois court, see 394 Ill. 194, 68 N. E. 2d 252, they are not open here. Carter v. Illinois, 329 U. S. 173. They must be raised by whatever procedure Illinois may provide, or, in default of relief by appropriate Illinois proceedings, by a new claim of denial of due process for want of such relief. See Mooney v. Holohan, 294 U. S. 103.
Affirmed.
MR. JUSTICE BLACK, with whom MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, MR. JUSTICE MURPHY and MR. JUSTICE RUTLEDGE join, dissenting.
In Adamson v. California, this day decided, ante p. 46, the Court waters down the
In the Adamson case, I have voiced my objections to dilution of constitutional protections against self-incrimination in state courts. This decision is another example of the consequences which can be produced by substitution of this Court‘s day-to-day opinion of what kind of trial is fаir and decent for the kind of trial which the Bill of Rights guarantees. This time it is the right of counsel. We cannot know what Bill of Rights provision will next be attenuated by the Court. We can at least be sure that there will be more, so long as the Court adheres to the doctrine of this and the Adamson case.
The Court‘s decision relies heavily on Betts v. Brady, 316 U. S. 455. In that case, a man on relief, too poor to hire a lawyer, and whose rеquest for the appointment of a lawyer was denied, was compelled to act as his own lawyer on a charge of robbery. Conviction followed. That case is precedent for this one. But it is the kind of precedent that I had hoped this Court would not perpetuate.
One thing more. The Court seems to fear that protecting these defendants’ right to counsel to the full extent defined in the Bill of Rights would furnish “opportunities hitherto uncontemplated for opening wide the prison doors of the land,” because, presumably, there are many
MR. JUSTICE RUTLEDGE, with whom MR. JUSTICE BLACK, MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, and MR. JUSTICE MURPHY concur, dissenting.
I think the
Apart from that view and upon the Court‘s basis that the
But when a record discloses as much as the record here shows, I do not think any presumption of regularity should be permitted to overcome the substance of the violated constitutional right. Such a presumption indeed, if valid by mere force of the fact that a judgment has been rendered, may always be indulged. Cf. Williams v. Kaiser, 323 U. S. 471; Tomkins v. Missouri, 323 U. S. 485; De Meerleer v. Michigan, 329 U. S. 663. And the consequences of such a course of action here, for the observance and preservation of constitutional rights, more especially of the indigent and ignorant who are unable to employ counsel from their own resources and do
Here petitioners were charged with the serious crimes of burglary and larceny, handed a copy of the indictment, and arraigned. Every lawyer knows the difficulties of pleading to such charges, including the technicalities of the applicable statutes and especially of the practice relating to included or lesser offenses. The crimes charged involved penalties of imprisonment for from one year to life, the penalty actually imposed upon these petitioners.
On the very day the indictment was handed down, pеtitioners were arraigned, their pleas of guilty were accepted, and they were sentenced. At no time were they offered counsel or advised of their right to counsel, nor did they receive any assistance from counsel. The record, it is true, recites that they were “advised of their rights of Trial and of the consequences of аn entry of a plea of guilty,” notwithstanding which each said that he was guilty, whereupon the court “advises and admonishes each of said defendants of the consequences of entering such pleas of guilty,” despite which each persisted in his plea.
However this vague and formal recital might be taken in other circumstances, it cannot be regarded in this case as meaning that petitioners were either offered counsel or informed of any right to counsel. Indeed the recital must be taken as having deliberately avoided including statements in either respect. And, upon the record as a whole, we are required not only to read it in this light but to conclude that the recital аnd the intentional omission of statements concerning the right to counsel were effective to establish that the petitioners were in fact denied that right.
We are not only entitled, we are required, to read thе record of the state‘s proceedings in the light of the state‘s law applicable to them. In Illinois by statute it is only in capital cases that the court is under an affirmative duty, when it appears that a defendant is indigent, to tender appointment of counsel.1 In noncapital cases the following statute applies:
“. . . Every person charged with crime shall be allowed counsel, and when he shall state upon oath that he is unable to procure counsel, the court shall assign him competent counsel, who shall conduct his defense.”
Ill. Rev. Stat. (1945) c. 38, § 730 .
The Illinois Supreme Court consistently has construed this statute as requiring appointment of counsel only when a defendant requests counsel and states on oath that he cannot procure cоunsel. It is expressly held that the provision “does not place upon the court the duty to proffer the services of counsel . . . ,” People v. Lavendowski, 326 Ill. 173, 176, nor does it require advising defendants of their right to counsel. People v. Corrie, 387 Ill. 587, 589-590. See also People v. Corbett, 387 Ill.
Finally, the opinion of the Illinois court in this case shows that petitioners were denied relief on the basis of these rules.3
In the light of the Illinois statutes and decisions, therefore, the present record can be taken to sustain no presumption that the trial court offered counsel to petitioners, inquired concerning their need for counsel or ability to secure such aid, or advised them in any way of their right to have that assistance. The only tenable presumption is that the court refrained deliberately, in accordance with the state law, from taking action in any of these respects.
Moreover, when men appear in court for trial or plea, obviously without counsel or so far as appears the means of securing such aid, under serious charges such as were made here involving penalties of the character imposed, it is altogether inconsistent with their federal constitutional right for the court to shut its eyes to their apparently helpless condition without so much as an inquiry concerning its causе. A system so callous of the rights of men, not only in their personal freedom but in their rights to trial comporting with any conception of fairness, as to tolerate such action, is in my opinion wholly contrary
Adding to this blindness a “presumption of regularity” to sustain what has thus been done makes a mockery of judicial proceedings in any sense of the administration of justice and a snare and a delusion of constitutional rights for all unable to pay the cost of securing their obsеrvance.