Campbell v. Marshall

• Decision Date: 23 July 1985
• Docket Number: No. 84-3404,84-3404
• Citation: 769 F.2d 314
• Parties: William L. CAMPBELL, III, Petitioner-Appellant, v. R.C. MARSHALL; the Attorney General of Ohio, Respondents-Appellees.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit

Page 314

769 F.2d 314

54 USLW 2102

William L. CAMPBELL, III, Petitioner-Appellant, v. R.C. MARSHALL; the Attorney General of Ohio, Respondents-Appellees.

No. 84-3404.

United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.

Argued Oct. 12, 1984.

Decided and Filed July 23, 1985.

J. Dean Carro, Appellate Review Office, Akron, Ohio, for petitioner-appellant.

William J. Steele (argued), Richard David Drake, Anthony Celebrezze, Columbus, Ohio, for respondents-appellees.

Before ENGEL and WELLFORD, Circuit Judges, and DeMASCIO, ^* District Judge.

ENGEL, Circuit Judge.

The principal issue in this habeas corpus appeal is whether the failure of the state to disclose potentially exculpatory evidence in its possession renders involuntary an otherwise voluntary, counseled plea of guilty. We assume without deciding that under Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963), the state's conduct here in suppressing information favorable to the petitioner would have violated his Fourteenth Amendment due process rights if he had been convicted after a trial without the benefit of that information. Nonetheless, we conclude that under Tollett v. Henderson, 411 U.S. 258, 93 S.Ct. 1602, 36 L.Ed.2d 235 (1973), and related Supreme Court decisions, the question presented in the instant case is not so much whether the particular conduct complained of violated Brady, but instead, whether under such circumstances petitioner's guilty plea was intelligently and voluntarily made with the advice of competent counsel. Put another way, did the prior withholding of the Brady information so taint the plea-taking as to render the guilty plea involuntary or unintelligent? We hold that petitioner's guilty plea here was valid and that his Fourteenth Amendment right to due process was not violated.

The relevant facts in this case are largely undisputed. While there was no trial, the evidence is fully laid out upon the record of the state and federal proceedings in which petitioner first pleaded guilty and then attempted to extricate himself from that plea.

On June 3, 1978, appellant William L. Campbell, III, used his key to enter the apartment of his former wife, Sheila Campbell. Campbell had been living in the apartment with Sheila and their children until about two weeks earlier. In his statement to the police, Campbell said that he went to the apartment to remove some of his personal property, including a .22 caliber automatic pistol and approximately 300 rounds of ammunition. He alleges that he was drunk and fell asleep at the kitchen table after placing the gun and ammunition on a divider between the table and the apartment's front door. Sometime after midnight Sheila Campbell, their children, and a male companion entered the apartment. Campbell told the police that he asked the man who he was, and the man replied, "Franket." Campbell further stated that several months earlier a friend had warned him that Ronald Franket had a gun and was "looking for him." Campbell claimed that although he saw no gun, he saw Franket reach into his pocket, and Campbell, therefore, shot Ronald Franket five times. He also shot Sheila Campbell three times. Both died.

Campbell turned himself in the following day and was subsequently indicted by a Columbiana County, Ohio grand jury on two counts of aggravated murder with specifications and one count of aggravated burglary. The specifications alleged that Campbell committed each murder as a part of the killing of two or more persons and that each was committed during the course of an aggravated burglary. Under Ohio law, Campbell could have received the death penalty if convicted of aggravated murder and at least one of the specifications. Ohio Rev.Code Secs. 2929.03(B), 2929.04(A)(5), (7). If convicted of aggravated murder but neither of the specifications, Campbell's maximum possible sentence was life imprisonment for each count. Ohio Rev.Code Secs. 2929.02-.03. The aggravated burglary count carried a possible sentence of 4 to 25 years. Ohio Rev.Code Secs. 2911.11, 2929.11.

As part of Campbell's plea bargain, the prosecutor moved both to strike the specifications from the aggravated murder portion of the indictment and to enter a nolle prosequi as to the aggravated burglary charge. In return, Campbell entered a plea of guilty to the two aggravated murder counts.

Before his plea hearing, Campbell was given a document entitled "Judicial Advice to Defendant." That document contained a discussion of each of the constitutional rights Campbell would waive by pleading guilty, the elements of the crime to which he intended to plead, and the maximum penalties he could receive. Campbell completed a written "Defendant's Response to Court" indicating that he had read and understood the information in the "Judicial Advice to Defendant." In his "Response" he also answered specific questions to establish that his guilty plea was knowing, intelligent, and voluntary. At the plea hearing the state court judge determined that Campbell had read and understood these documents. He also questioned Campbell as to his knowledge of the consequences of his guilty plea and discussed some of the rights Campbell was waiving. The court did not specifically inform Campbell in court that the plea would waive his right to be free from self-incrimination, his right of confrontation, and his right to compulsory process, although a discussion of the waiver of each of these rights was included in the "Judicial Advice to Defendant." When asked by the court why he shot Ronald Franket and Sheila Campbell, Campbell replied, "Because he was with my wife," and "Because she was with him." The court accepted Campbell's guilty plea and sentenced him to two consecutive life sentences.

Before Campbell decided to plead guilty, his counsel made a specific written request for discovery from the prosecution. He requested any evidence material to Campbell's guilt or punishment as well as a list of the tangible objects which the prosecution intended to use at trial. Campbell subsequently learned that the police had found a .25 caliber semi-automatic pistol on Franket's body and had taken that gun into their possession. The palm-sized weapon was found in the left, rear, hip pocket of Franket's pants. Although they were aware of the gun's existence and had the gun in their possession, the prosecution did not disclose the gun to Campbell or his counsel.

Campbell subsequently challenged his conviction in the Ohio courts and lost those challenges. He then brought a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio. The district judge referred Campbell's habeas petition to a magistrate who recommended a denial of the writ. In a written opinion, the district judge adopted the magistrate's report and recommendation and denied Campbell's petition.

In his habeas petition and on appeal, Campbell argues that his plea bargain was invalid on two grounds. First, Campbell argues that the prosecution's failure to disclose the existence of Franket's handgun violated his Fourteenth Amendment due process rights as set forth in Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963). The lower court held that the suppression of the evidence concerning the gun did not amount to a constitutional violation. Campbell contended that he pleaded guilty only because he had no believable self-defense claim and that he would have gone to a jury with that defense had he known of the gun. The district court rejected this argument, finding that

To establish the defense of self-defense, an accused must demonstrate that at the time of the killing he reasonably believed that he was in danger of loss of life or serious bodily harm.... That petitioner later learned that the male victim was carrying a gun would not have any effect on the reasonableness of his belief that his life was in danger at the time of the shooting. Consequently, the suppression of this evidence did not materially prejudice petitioner's ability to assert self-defense.... The prosecution's failure to disclose the existence of the handgun did not amount to a violation of petitioner's constitutional rights.

Campbell v. Marshall, No. C 83-3004 Y, slip op. at 3-4 (N.D.Ohio March 26, 1984).

Second, Campbell states that because he was not specifically informed by the trial judge in open court that his guilty plea would waive his right to be free from self-incrimination, his right of confrontation, and his right to compulsory process, his Fourteenth Amendment due process rights were violated under the principles expressed by the Supreme Court in Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238, 89 S.Ct. 1709, 23 L.Ed.2d 274 (1969). The district court found that Campbell's constitutional rights as enunciated in Boykin v. Alabama were not violated, relying on the Sixth Circuit's decisions in Roddy v. Black, 516 F.2d 1380 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 423 U.S. 917, 96 S.Ct. 226, 46 L.Ed.2d 147 (1975), and Fontaine v. United States, 526 F.2d 514 (6th Cir.1975), cert. denied, 424 U.S. 973, 96 S.Ct. 1476, 47 L.Ed.2d 743 (1976).

I.

Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 87, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 1196, 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963), stands for the proposition that "the suppression by the prosecution of evidence favorable to an accused upon request violates due process where the evidence is material either to guilt or to punishment, irrespective of the good faith or bad faith of the prosecution." Brady v. Maryland concerned the state's suppression of exculpatory evidence until after trial, thereby making that information unavailable to the defense for use at trial. Justice Douglas, the author of Brady v. Maryland, wrote that the Brady ruling was an extension of the Court's previous decision in Mooney v. Holohan, 294 U.S. 103, 55 S.Ct. 340, 79 L.Ed. 791 (1935). In Mooney, the Court had held that the state violated due process when it deliberately deceived the trial court and deprived a...