Dickerson v. Vaughn
| Decision Date | 29 April 1996 |
| Docket Number | 95-1353,Nos. 95-1525,s. 95-1525 |
| Citation | 90 F.3d 87 |
| Parties | Anthony DICKERSON, Appellant, v. Donald T. VAUGHN; The Attorney General of The State of Pennsylvania; The District Attorney of Bucks County, Pennsylvania, Appellees. Larry MEGGETT, Appellant, v. Martin DRAGOVICH, Superintendent of Mahanoy; The Attorney General of The State of Pennsylvania; The District Attorney of Bucks County, Appellees. . Submitted Pursuant To Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a) |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Third Circuit |
Jane Goldberg, Bala Cynwyd, Pennsylvania, for Appellant Anthony Dickerson in No. 95-1525.
Alan M. Rubenstein, District Attorney, Stephen B. Harris, Chief of Appeals, Carolyn K. Oliver, Deputy District Attorney, District Attorney Office, Doylestown, PA, for Appellees in No. 95-1525.
Robert E. Nicholson (argued), East Orange, New Jersey, for Appellant Larry Meggett in No. 95-1353.
Alan M. Rubenstein, District Attorney, Stephen B. Harris (argued), Chief of Appeals, Carolyn K. Oliver, Deputy District Attorney, for Appellees in No. 95-1353.
Before: STAPLETON, SCIRICA, and WEIS, Circuit Judges.
In these habeas corpus cases, petitioners allege that they would not have pleaded nolo contendere if they had known that their pleas would prevent them from appealing a pre-trial ruling. The state's intermediate appellate court found that the pleas were induced by faulty legal advice by trial counsel and that petitioners were entitled to new trials. The state Supreme Court reversed, holding that the petitioners' responses during a plea colloquy in the state trial court barred them from challenging the voluntariness of their pleas. Because established federal law prohibits giving such preclusive effect to plea colloquies, we conclude that habeas corpus relief is appropriate.
Petitioners Larry Meggett and Anthony Dickerson were charged in the Court of Common Pleas of Bucks County, Pennsylvania, with counts of participating in a corrupt organization, manufacture, delivery and possession of controlled substances, conspiracy and related offenses. On the day set for trial, the presiding judge denied the petitioners' motions raising double jeopardy.
While petitioners were handcuffed together in the courtroom awaiting selection of a jury, they heard their co-defendants plead guilty and agree to turn state's evidence. The prosecutor then offered petitioners a concession limiting the terms of incarceration imposed if they pleaded guilty. Petitioners asserted that they then decided to plead nolo contendere after assurances from their respective lawyers that the double jeopardy issue could be preserved for appeal.
During the plea colloquy, the trial judge told each defendant that "as far as sentencing is concerned [entering a nolo contendere plea] is the same as pleading guilty." The judge then asked: "Do you understand your only appeal rights are whether this [crime] happened in Bucks County; whether [the] sentence is lawful and whether you're entering this plea of your own free will?" Petitioners replied that they so understood. Petitioners did not take a direct appeal, but two months after sentencing they filed petitions under the Pennsylvania Post Conviction Relief Act. The Common Pleas Court conducted a consolidated evidentiary hearing at which both petitioners and their attorneys testified. The court denied relief, finding the trial counsels' testimony to be credible and rejecting the portions of the petitioners' testimony that were contradictory.
At the hearing, Meggett testified that he, Dickerson and their respective lawyers were all present when they discussed the possibility of entering nolo contendere pleas. Meggett asked his counsel whether he would be giving up his right to contest the double jeopardy matter if he pleaded nolo contendere. His lawyer responded, "No, we would still be preserving our rights." Meggett testified that both lawyers replied that "if we took the nolo contendere we could still have the issues preserved."
During his testimony, Meggett's trial counsel was asked what he had told his client about the validity of the double jeopardy claim. He answered, The lawyer was then asked: "Did you believe at that time that he could continue his double jeopardy argument even after entering a nolo contendere plea?" He responded: "I believe that if counsel is creative, he probably could get away with that," but that he had not looked into how it could be done because it was "not my job."
Petitioner Dickerson testified that his lawyer said nolo contendere was not like a guilty plea because "you still have all your appealable issues" and that a nolo plea was not a waiver. According to Dickerson, the attorney urged him to take the plea bargain offered by the prosecutor, telling him: "You could still push the double jeopardy and still be heard." Dickerson said he would not have pleaded if he had known it meant waiving his double jeopardy appeal.
At the hearing, Dickerson's trial attorney was asked whether he had told his client that he could raise the double jeopardy issue on appeal. He conceded, "I probably said it was possible, although I did tell him he was limited in his rights of appeal." The lawyer also testified that about six weeks before the hearing, he had written a letter to Dickerson in which he said, "I believe that because pre-trial motions were denied without a hearing and without your presence, that you may yet have a double jeopardy issue brought before the Court."
Petitioners appealed the denial of their post conviction petitions to the Superior Court of Pennsylvania. That Court, reiterating settled Pennsylvania law, stated that with respect to the termination of appellate rights, a nolo contendere plea had the same effect as a guilty plea. The Court nevertheless reversed in separate opinions.
In the Meggett case, the Superior Court stated that the issue was whether a client's "claim of a right to be properly advised by counsel regarding the merits of the double jeopardy claim is warranted, as this is what influenced [the petitioners'] decision to plead." The opinion commented: "There can be no legitimate basis for failing to apprise a defendant of the continuing validity of his claims." The Court was critical of "a somewhat lackadaisical attitude" on the part of Meggett's lawyer. Finally, the opinion pointed out that "the propriety" of the sentencing colloquy will not, in and of itself, resolve the question as to whether "[petitioner] made his plea voluntarily and knowingly ... While the colloquy was not defective, it cannot be expected to anticipate and resolve issues in the mind of the defendant of which only the attorney is aware."
In the Dickerson opinion, the Superior Court found that he "was prejudiced by relying to his detriment on this erroneous advice" and that the "plea colloquy did not cure such prejudice." After reviewing the hearing testimony and evidence, the Court stated that "there can be no doubt as to the arguable merit of Dickerson's claim." The opinion concluded that "but for" the attorneys' "faulty advice" on the continued vitality of the double jeopardy claims, petitioners "would not have entered a plea." The Court vacated the sentences and remanded for withdrawal of the pleas and new trials in both cases.
The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania granted allocatur and, without briefing or argument, reversed the Superior Court's orders and reinstated the convictions. Rejecting the conclusion that the pleas were defective, the state Supreme Court's succinct orders asserted that each petitioner The orders contain neither references to ineffective assistance of counsel, nor factual determinations of what advice was given to petitioners or whether they relied on it in entering their pleas.
Petitioners then sought relief in the district court, but these separate requests were denied. We consolidated both cases for disposition.
While the petitioners' appeals were pending in this Court, Congress enacted amendments to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 changing the standard of review for cases challenging state convictions where constitutional violations are alleged to have occurred. These provisions state that federal courts may not grant relief "unless the [state court] adjudication of the claim--(1) resulted in a decision that was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law ... or (2) resulted in a decision that was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the State court proceeding." Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, sec. 104(3), Pub.L. No. 104-132, 110 Stat. 1214, 1219 (1996).
Under the earlier version of 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d), we presumed that a state court's factual finding was correct unless, inter alia, "such factual determination is not fairly supported by the record." In contrast, state court legal rulings were accorded no deference under the former statute. Parry v. Rosemeyer, 64 F.3d 110, 113 (3d Cir.1995).
We have concluded that the resolution of the issues in this case would not differ under either version of the statute. Accordingly, we will apply...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Commonwealth v. Masker
...of the defendant's punishment.” Parry v. Rosemeyer, 64 F.3d 110, 114 (3d Cir.1995), superseded by statute as stated in Dickerson v. Vaughn, 90 F.3d 87 (3d Cir.1996). Indeed, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has held that “the only consequences considered direct are t......
-
Douglas v. Hendricks
...increased the deference federal courts must give to factual findings and legal determinations of the state courts. See Dickerson v. Vaughn, 90 F.3d 87, 90 (3d Cir. 1996). Under the Supreme Court's landmark case, Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362, 120 S.Ct. 1495, 146 L.Ed.2d 389 (2000), feder......
-
Martini v. Hendricks, Civ. No. 99-4347 (WHW) (D. N.J. 2002)
...increased the deference federal courts must give to factual findings and legal determinations of the state courts. See Dickerson v. Vaughn, 90 F.3d 87, 90 (3d. Cir. 1996). Under the Supreme Court's landmark case, Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362, 120 S.Ct. 1495, 146 L.Ed.2d 389 (2000), fede......
-
Marshall v. Hendricks
...habeas `retrials' and to ensure that state-court convictions are given effect to the extent possible under law"); Dickerson v. Vaughn, 90 F.3d 87, 90 (3d Cir.1996). In addition to narrowing the scope of habeas review for prisoners in state custody, AEDPA imposes a one-year statute of limita......