Woods v. United States, 71-1421.

Decision Date21 March 1972
Docket NumberNo. 71-1421.,71-1421.
Citation457 F.2d 185
PartiesGeorge WOODS, alias George Nadler, Petitioner-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Respondent-Appellee.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit

Jack B. Burstein, Vallejo, Cal., Smith & Burstein, Vallejo, Cal., for petitioner-appellant.

Henry A. Schwarz, U. S. Atty., Eugene B. Culberson, Asst. U. S. Atty., East St. Louis, Ill., for respondent-appellee.

Before DUFFY, Senior Circuit Judge, SPRECHER, Circuit Judge, and ESCHBACH*, District Judge.

PER CURIAM.

On September 21, 1970, petitioner filed a petition for Writ of Coram Nobis1 seeking to have declared void a felony conviction which was adjudged against him nearly forty years ago on April 23, 1932.

The judgment of conviction here at issue was entered after a plea of guilty by defendant in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Illinois. The petition herein alleges that Woods was not, on that occasion, accorded counsel, and that he did not intelligently or otherwise waive that right.2

It is averred by the petitioner that he first became aware of his right to counsel on May 18, 1970 when he was arrested in California for failing to disclose the 1932 felony conviction when he was purchasing a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(a) (6).

The issue before us is whether the motion to dismiss herein may be properly granted without an evidentiary hearing.

We think a very recent decision of this Court3 is controlling. Therein, defendant Lufman had been convicted of a felony in 1938 and was appealing before us from a subsequent conviction for possessing a firearm while a convicted felon in violation of 18 U.S.C. App. Sec. 1202(a). The docket entries of the 1938 conviction in Lufman, supra, were silent with respect to whether the defendant was represented by counsel although an affidavit was submitted stating he had not been advised of his right to counsel and was not represented by counsel.

Petitioner Woods, in the case at bar, submitted a minute order of his 1932 conviction which also was silent regarding advice on his right to counsel and whether he was represented during the 1932 proceedings.

In Lufman, supra, we believe the points of law noted in footnote 2 are controlling herein. We noted in Lufman:

". . . Once a defendant raises the constitutional invalidity of a prior conviction, the government has the heavy burden of proving absence of a constitutional defect or waiver of rights. United States v. Du Shane, 435 F.2d 187, 189-190 (2 Cir., 1970). When the record of a prior conviction is silent as to the presence of counsel, it is presumed that the Sixth Amendment rights of the defendant have been violated. The government must affirmatively prove otherwise. Carnley v. Cochran, 369 U.S. 506, 516, 82 S.Ct. 884, 8 L.Ed.2d 70 (1962); Burgett v. Texas, 389 U.S. 109, 114, 115, 88 S.Ct. 258, 19 L.Ed.2d 319 (1967); Oswald v. Crouse, 420 F.2d 373 (10 Cir. 1969); Losieau v. Sigler, 406 F.2d 795 (8 Cir. 1969)."

We are of the opinion that considering the foregoing authority, the motion to dismiss was improperly granted the respondent. An evidentiary hearing in this case should have been held.

The decision of the District Court granting the Government's motion to dismiss must be and is reversed and remanded for an evidentiary hearing not inconsistent with this opinion.

Reversed and remanded.

* District Judge Jesse E. Eschbach of the Northern District of Indiana is sitting by...

To continue reading

Request your trial
5 cases
  • Mitchell v. United States, 72-3661.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit
    • November 1, 1973
    ...that the defendant was represented by counsel or that he waived his right to counsel. Carnley v. Cochran, supra; Woods v. United States, 7th Cir. 1972, 457 F.2d 185; United States v. Lufman, 7th Cir. 1972, 457 F.2d 165, 166 n. 2; Goodwin v. Smith, 5th Cir. 1971, 439 F.2d 1180; United States......
  • Palmentere v. United States
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Western District of Missouri
    • November 10, 1972
    ...in support of his petition, and petitioner has not sustained his burden of proof." The recent Seventh Circuit case of Woods v. United States, (7 Cir., 1972) 457 F.2d 185, makes clear that the burden of proof principles applicable to an old state conviction obtained in violation of Gideon v.......
  • United States ex rel. Lasky v. LaVallee, 211
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit
    • January 19, 1973
    ...there is some authority for this proposition, see United States v. Lufman, 457 F.2d 165, 166-167 n. 2 (7 Cir. 1972); Woods v. United States, 457 F.2d 185 (7 Cir. 1972), we find no need, in the light of our above holding, to address ourselves directly to this 9 See also dissenting opinion of......
  • Crovedi v. U.S.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit
    • May 20, 1975
    ...'Presuming waiver of counsel from a silent record is impermissible.' " (Citations omitted.) Id. at 167 n. 2. Accord, Woods v. United States, 457 F.2d 185 (7th Cir. 1972). United States v. Janiec, 464 F.2d 126 (3d Cir. 1972), goes beyond the factual situation of Tucker in which the misinform......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT