Boykin v. Alabama, No. 642

CourtUnited States Supreme Court
Writing for the CourtDOUGLAS
Citation395 U.S. 238,23 L.Ed.2d 274,89 S.Ct. 1709
PartiesEdward BOYKIN, Jr., Petitioner, v. State of ALABAMA
Docket NumberNo. 642
Decision Date02 June 1969

395 U.S. 238
89 S.Ct. 1709
23 L.Ed.2d 274
Edward BOYKIN, Jr., Petitioner,

v.

State of ALABAMA.

No. 642.
Argued March 4, 1969.
Decided June 2, 1969.

Page 239

E. Graham Gibbons, Mobile, Ala., for petitioner.

David W. Clark, Montgomery, Ala., for respondent.

Mr. Justice DOUGLAS delivered the opinion of the Court.

In the spring of 1966, within the period of a fortnight, a series of armed robberies occurred in Mobile, Alabama. The victims, in each case, were local shopkeepers open at night who were forced by a gunman to hand over money. While robbing one grocery store, the assailant fired his gun once, sending a bullet through a door into the ceiling. A few days earlier in a drugstore, the robber had allowed his gun to discharge in such a way that the bullet, on ricochet from the floor, struck a customer in the leg. Shortly thereafter, a local grand jury returned five indictments against petitioner, a 27-year-old Negro, for commonlaw robbery—an offense punishable in Alabama by death.

Before the matter came to trial, the court determined that petitioner was indigent and appointed counsel1 to represent him. Three days later, at his arraignment, petitioner pleaded guilty to all five indictments. So far as the record shows, the judge asked no questions of petitioner concerning his plea, and petitioner did not address the court.

Page 240

Trial strategy may of course make a plea of guilty seem the desirable course. But the record is wholly silent on that point and throws no light on it.

l abama provides that when a defendant pleads guilty, 'the court must cause the punishment to be determined by a jury' (except where it is required to be fixed by the court) and may 'cause witnesses to be examined, to ascertain the character of the offense.' Ala.Code, Tit. 15, § 277 (1958). In the present case a trial of that dimension was held, the prosecution presenting its case largely through eyewitness testimony. Although counsel for petitioner engaged in cursory cross-examination, petitioner neither testified himself nor presented testimony concerning his character and background. There was nothing to indicate that he had a prior criminal record.

In instructing the jury, the judge stressed that petitioner had pleaded guilty in five cases of robbery,2 defined as 'the felonious taking of money * * * from another against his will * * * by violence or by putting him in fear * * * (carrying) from ten years minimum in the penitentiary to the supreme penalty of death by electrocution.' The jury, upon deliberation, found petitioner guilty and sentenced him severally to die on each of the five indictments.

Taking an automatic appeal to the Alabama Supreme Court, petitioner argued that a sentence of death for common-law robbery was cruel and unusual punishment within the meaning of the Federal Constitution, a suggestion which that court unanimously rejected. 281 Ala. 659, 207 So.2d 412. On their own motion, however, four of the seven justices discussed the constitutionality of the process by which the trial judge had accepted petitioner's guilty plea. From the order affirming the

Page 241

trial court, three justices dissented on the ground that the record was inadequate to show that petitioner had intelligently and knowingly pleaded guilty. The fourth member concurred separately, conceding that 'a trial judge should not accept a guilty plea unless he has determined that such a plea was voluntarily and knowingly entered by the defendant,' but refusing '(f)or aught appearing' 'to presume that the trial judge failed to do his duty.' 281 Ala., at 662, 663, 207 So.2d, at 414, 415. We granted certiorari. 393 U.S. 820, 89 S.Ct. 200, 21 L.Ed.2d 93.

Respondent does not suggest that we lack jurisdiction to review the voluntary character of petitioner's guilty plea because he failed to raise that federal question below and the state court failed to pass upon it.3 But the question was raised on oral argument and we conclude that it is properly presented. The very Alabama statute. (Ala. Code, Tit. 15, § 382 (10) (1958)) that provides automatic appeal in capital cases also requires the reviewing court to comb the record for 'any error prejudicial to the appellant, even though not called to our attention in brief of counsel.' Lee v. State, 265 Ala. 623, 630, 93 So.2d 757, 763. The automatic appeal statute 'is the only provision under the Plain Error doctrine of which we are aware in Alabama criminal appellate review.' Douglas v. State, 42 Ala.App. 314, 331, n. 6, 163 So.2d 477, 494, n. 6. In the words of the Alabama Supreme Court:

'Perhaps it is well to note that in reviewing a death case under the automatic appeal statute, * * * we may consider any testimony that was seriously prejudicial to the rights of the appellant and may

Page 242

reverse thereon, even though no lawful objection or exception was made thereto. (Citations omitted.) Our review is not limited to the matters brought to our attention in brief of counsel.' Duncan v. State, 278 Ala. 145, 157, 176 So.2d 840, 851.

It was error, plain o the face of the record, for the trial judge to accept petitioner's guilty plea without an affirmative showing that it was intelligent and voluntary. That error, under Alabama procedure, was properly before the court below and considered explicitly by a majority of the justices and is properly before us on review.

A plea of guilty is more than a confession which admits that the accused did various acts; it is itself a conviction; nothing remains but to give judgment and determine punishment. See Kercheval v. United States, 274 U.S. 220, 223, 47 S.Ct. 582, 583, 71 L.Ed. 1009. Admissibility of a confession must be based on a 'reliable determination on the voluntariness issue which satisfies the constitutional rights of the defendant.' Jackson v. Denno, 378 U.S. 368, 387, 84 S.Ct. 1774, 1786, 12 L.Ed.2d 908. The requirement that the prosecution spread on the record the prerequisites of a valid waiver is no constitutional innovation. In Carnley v. Cochran, 369 U.S. 506, 516, 82 S.Ct. 884, 890, 8 L.Ed.2d 70, we dealt with a problem of waiver of the right to counsel, a Sixth Amendment right. We held: 'Presuming waiver from a silent record is impermissible. The record must show, or there must be an allegation and evidence which show, that an accused was offered counsel but intelligently and understandingly rejected the offer. Anything less is not waiver.'

We think that the same standard must be applied to determining whether a guilty plea is voluntarily made. For, as we have said, a plea of guilty is more than an admission of conduct; it is a conviction.4 Ignorance,

Page 243

incomprehension, coercion, terror, inducements, subtle or blatant threats might be a perfect cover-up of unconstitutionality. The question of an effective waiver of a federal constitutional right in a proceeding is of course governed by federal standards. Douglas v. Alabama, 380 U.S. 415, 422, 85 S.Ct. 1074, 1078, 13 L.Ed.2d 934.

Several federal constitutional rights are involved in a waiver that takes place when a plea of guilty is entered in a state criminal trial. First, is the privilege against compulsory self-incrimination guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment and applicable to the States by reason of the Fourteenth. Malloy v. Hogan, 378 U.S. 1, 84 S.Ct. 1489, 12 L.Ed.2d 653. Second, is the right to trial by jury. Duncan v. Louisiana, 391 U.S. 145, 88 S.Ct. 1444, 20 L.Ed.2d 491. Third, is the right to confront one's accusers. Pointer v. Texas, 380 U.S. 400, 85 S.Ct. 1065, 13 L.Ed.2d 923. We cannot presume a waiver of these three important federal rights from a silent record.5.

What is at stake for an accused facing death or imprs onment demands the utmost solicitude of which courts

Page 244

are capable in canvassing the matter with the accused to make sure he has a full understanding of what the plea connotes and of its consequence. When the judge discharges that function, he leaves a record adequate for any review that may be later sought6 (Garner v. Louisiana, 368 U.S. 157, 173, 82 S.Ct. 248, 256, 7 L.Ed.2d 207; Specht v. Patterson, 386 U.S. 605, 610, 87 S.Ct. 1209, 1212, 18 L.Ed.2d 326), and forestalls the spin-off of collateral proceedings that seek to probe murky memories.7

The three dissenting justices in the Alabama Supreme Court stated the law accurately when they concluded that there was reversible error 'because the record does not disclose that the defendant voluntarily and...

To continue reading

Request your trial
8297 practice notes
  • Fautenberry v. Mitchell, No. 05-3568.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (6th Circuit)
    • January 25, 2008
    ...affidavit. Id. A guilty or no-contest plea involves a waiver of many substantial constitutional rights, see Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238, 243, 89 S.Ct. 1709, 23 L.Ed.2d 274 (1969), and a court may accept a guilty or 515 F.3d 637 no-contest plea only where it is a "voluntary[,] ... knowin......
  • Rowe v. Miller, No. 02 Civ.2898(LAK).
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. Southern District of New York
    • January 14, 2004
    ...459, 466, 89 S.Ct. 1166, 22 L.Ed.2d 418 (1969) (emphasis added)). 53. This additional element was added by the Court in Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238, 242, 89 S.Ct. 1709, 23 L.Ed.2d 274 (1969); Parke, 506 U.S. at 29, 113 S.Ct. 517; Brady, 397 U.S. at 756 n. 4, 90 S.Ct. 1463; Matusiak v. K......
  • Alvarez v. City of Brownsville, No. 16-40772
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (5th Circuit)
    • September 18, 2018
    ...requiring that judges engage in extended, direct colloquy with defendants who seek to confirm their guilt under oath. Boykin v. Alabama , 395 U.S. 238, 89 S.Ct. 1709, 23 L.Ed.2d 274 (1969) ; Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(b)(1). Judges must confirm that a factual basis supports every guilty plea. See ......
  • Pope v. State, No. 42863
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Georgia
    • July 16, 1986
    ...but the record in this case is otherwise devoid of any evidence that the pleas were intelligent and voluntary. See Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238, 89 S.Ct. 1709, 23 L.Ed.2d 274 A plea of guilty that is invalid under Boykin may not be used to enhance punishment in a subsequent trial. See Bu......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
8322 cases
  • Fautenberry v. Mitchell, No. 05-3568.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (6th Circuit)
    • January 25, 2008
    ...affidavit. Id. A guilty or no-contest plea involves a waiver of many substantial constitutional rights, see Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238, 243, 89 S.Ct. 1709, 23 L.Ed.2d 274 (1969), and a court may accept a guilty or 515 F.3d 637 no-contest plea only where it is a "voluntary[,] ... knowin......
  • Rowe v. Miller, No. 02 Civ.2898(LAK).
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. Southern District of New York
    • January 14, 2004
    ...459, 466, 89 S.Ct. 1166, 22 L.Ed.2d 418 (1969) (emphasis added)). 53. This additional element was added by the Court in Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238, 242, 89 S.Ct. 1709, 23 L.Ed.2d 274 (1969); Parke, 506 U.S. at 29, 113 S.Ct. 517; Brady, 397 U.S. at 756 n. 4, 90 S.Ct. 1463; Matusiak v. K......
  • Alvarez v. City of Brownsville, No. 16-40772
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (5th Circuit)
    • September 18, 2018
    ...requiring that judges engage in extended, direct colloquy with defendants who seek to confirm their guilt under oath. Boykin v. Alabama , 395 U.S. 238, 89 S.Ct. 1709, 23 L.Ed.2d 274 (1969) ; Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(b)(1). Judges must confirm that a factual basis supports every guilty plea. See ......
  • Pope v. State, No. 42863
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Georgia
    • July 16, 1986
    ...but the record in this case is otherwise devoid of any evidence that the pleas were intelligent and voluntary. See Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238, 89 S.Ct. 1709, 23 L.Ed.2d 274 A plea of guilty that is invalid under Boykin may not be used to enhance punishment in a subsequent trial. See Bu......
  • 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