*1 Washing- Curran, Atty., ward M. U. S. ton, C., brief, appellee. for D. was on the v. HUFF. McJORDAN No. 8361. Burke, Atty., of Mr. P. U. S. Asst. John Washington, C., ap- also entered D. Appeals for the States Court pearance for appellee. Columbia. District of GRONER, Justice, and Before Chief Argued Jan. VINSON and Associate Justices. Feb. Decided
GRONER, C. J. This is an a final order dis- charging corpus, re- a writ of habeas manding petitioner custody jailer. Appellant (petitioner) was ar- housebreaking in the rested and indicted for 24th of latter of 1941. On November year pleaded that Sth, following, he was December On penitentiary confined in the sentenced to be to four period sixteen months Dis- years. July, he filed in the In upon alleging trict Court a petition, pleaded guilty and arraignment he had he was en- was'informed the court that requested that titled “petitioner assigned, counsel be but during entire never did see Superintend- procedure case.” The answered, denying peti- prison ent of the stating affirmative- allegations and tioner’s ly provided counsel and that the court with had consulted Judge concerning his case. and advised him findings made Morris, who heard 24th, that on November of fact to the effect day arraignment, the court had the appointed of the Guervitz, Esq., a Maurice A. District of Col- member of the Bar umbia, represent appellant and that petitioner and did Guervitz consult with his case. On advise him in relation to findings he concluded as basis of these appellant’s constitution- matter of law not been violated. al below shows evidence taken arrested he made when written confession up- police; the Dis- subsequent on his indictment, pleaded upon trict Court guilty; reasonably familiar knew his procedure and with assignment of counsel to de- to demand the him, assignment; for no such but asked fend thereupon, day, on the same Judge that the Burkinshaw, Washington, Neil (appointed Mr. of the Probation his case to one referred court), for D. C. investigation and re- for Commissioners pellant. Guervitz port immediately ob- Murray, represent him. The latter Atty., Asst. U. S. Charles B. Mr. and inter- C., of the indictment with whom tained Washington, copy D. Mr. Ed- *2 appellant viewed proper motion, on while he was still in the as a matter of course. building, court advising true, that he had this were him the conclusion we reach appointed by been attorney; the in court as his this case would be And the different. plea he guilty knew of his of plea and the fact subject the change, was to probation reference of his case to the de- doubt, we have no Judge’s was in the mind partment, but that he would like to talk to when after immediately the him exactly to pleading be sure plea and designated he repre- counsel to should; as he and that if the facts in his appellant, sent and that this was also clear- justify case did not pleading guilty, ly his by appears understood from the plea would at ask changed. once to have the fact immediately appellant advised Appellant replied guilty, that he was and that the former could be withdrawn plea described his in housebreaking the and plea and a guilty of not entered in its on, larceny charged. As which the indictment place. hearing For on the the writ coun- a result counsel concluded that it was in- sel appellant stated that he informed advisable apply to to have the court any grounds upon there were which he plea guilty days of set aside. ten hope Some go successfully trial, a trial appellant later brought was into court and could plea guilty. had on a new of not sentenced, proceeding at which his appellant, But conscious of the facts that present. he had made full confession both police Officer, and to the Probation and that argument The on this is that probation his outweighed chances for appointment the plea of counsel after the innocence, chances guilt on trial of his or compliance was not a sufficient elected, with the advice of to stand by with the rules Supreme laid down the think, what he had done. We considered Court protection and this Court for the view, appellant’s in this attitude was the constitutional indigent de the intelligent, exercise of an informed charged fendant felony. with a We are judgment, made after conference with coun- opinion that, circumstances, in the point the sel, expressed which his belief that he is recently not well taken. We have successfully could not defend charge the occasion in two cases to discuss the rule and condition that his would bettered be guide which should action of the Dis plea rather than worsened trict Court in cases of this nature. In both U.S., Cf. Adams v. we said the rule is that the District Court circumstances, —. In all the the action of must, arraignment, on advise accused of his appointing in the ar- right, counsel and of his if he is raignment; but before cannot be indigent, appointed to have counsel for him. prejudiced appellant said to have or in- appears, In this as it now fringed rights. his constitutional the court counsel for Affirmed. immediately after but not before the ar raignment. Obviously, this was not in practice which, strict accordance with the (dissent- Associate Justice subsequently we said Wood in v. United ing). U.S.App.D.C. 274, 128 F.2d Appellant was entitled to counsel at his followed, A.L.R. should be and preliminary hearing, again and when he to which we now However, adhere. on his indictment.2 He had view of the facts here, we have shown we undisputed It none. that he had coun- no think this action of the justi court will not pleaded guilty. sel until after he had fy reversing our dismissing order question is whether he waived his Arraignment, writ. while perfunc not a tory proceeding, He did not waive it unless he knew in actual of it as practice Court, intelligently conducted the District primarily chose not to enforce it. “ docket; facilitate fixing indulge every ‘Courts pre- reasonable ”3 goes saying without that a guilty sumption against waiver.’ It has been at that time can be and changed, often is strongly intimated the court must in- Rives, Evans D.C. A.L.R. 126 F.2d Evans U.S.App.D.C. 274, 128 F.2d 141 A. F.2d 633. L.R. 1318. Johnson v. U.S.App. Wood v. United L.Ed. 1461.
álO guilty had form the case ascertain he been in the accused start; plead especially attitude.4 since preliminary hearing well as ed on as finding There is no arraignment, thought widely on and it was pellant chose, otherwise, not intelligently or hearing preliminary that a on *3 to enforce his There counsel. competent against the ac no finding knew had such a cused on his trial.6 But we cannot know that, despite guilty, he He knew guess and need not whether could have counsel before conviction injured by having early no counsel but there is no clear evidence stages prosecution. “The plea.5 he knew he have counsel before could have the funda assistance too widely un- knew what was he knew he to in mental and courts absolute to allow later, when jurisdiction known until dulge in nice as to the amount calculations were the Evans cases decided. and Wood prejudice arising its denial.”7 arraignment may man “Compliance with this constitutional Counsel pre a not jurisdictional substitute been less inclined to date is essential have authority to plea already en- requisite to court’s a federal plead liberty.”8 deprive been to not his life he would have an accused of tered than 60, 497; Cooper States, 4 6 315 U.S. v. F.2d United Glasscr v. United 680; Wharton, ; 457, Cir., Crim 71, 86 L.Ed. 62 S.Ct. F.2d 586, 274, Evidence, Ed., inal 11th §§ United 277,141 ease The Wood A.L.R. 1318. Iowa 138. L.Rev. F.2d you though contrary was decided later. Did tell that even “Q. change you you pled guilty Glasser United v. you your plea if not did 86 L.Ed. * * * Evans v. not. it? A. do He you you could have Q'. Did know you Johnson U.S. one? I did.” A. wanted Adelman, Cir., States