Ford v. Peyton

• Decision Date: 06 September 1968
• Court: Virginia Supreme Court
• Parties: Ernest Clifton FORD v. C. C. PEYTON, Supt., etc.

Page 314

163 S.E.2d 314

209 Va. 203

Ernest Clifton FORD v. C. C. PEYTON, Supt., etc.

Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia.

Sept. 6, 1968.

Peter O. Ward, Jr., Richmond (Hunton, Williams, Gay, Powell & Gibson, Richmond, on brief), for plaintiff in error.

Overton P. Pollard, Asst. Atty. Gen. (Robert Y. Button, Atty. Gen., Reno S. Harp, III, Asst. Atty. Gen., on brief), for defendant in error.

Before EGGLESTON, C.J., and BUCHANAN, SNEAD, I'ANSON, CARRICO, GORDON, and HARRISON, JJ.

I'ANSON, Justice.

On December 7, 1953, Ernest Clifton Ford, represented by court-appointed counsel, was convicted on six charges of statutory burglary and one charge of common law burglary and was sentenced to confinement in the State penitentiary for a total of 26 years. On February 14, 1964, Ford filed in the court below a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, alleging ineffective representation by counsel and thus a denial of due process in his 1953 trial. After a hearing on the petition the trial court denied the writ and dismissed the petition by its order entered on March 17, 1964. No attempt was made to appeal from this order, but on April 27, 1966, Ford filed an original petition for a writ of habeas corpus in this court, which was based substantially on the same grounds as the earlier petition. This court treated the 1966 petition as a petition for a writ of error to the 1964 judgment, and granted the writ.

The primary question presented by Ford is whether he was denied effective assistance of counsel, and in order to determine that we must look to the evidence in the habeas corpus hearing, which is before us on an agreed statement of facts. It is in substance as follows:

The attorney appointed by the court to represent Ford at the time of his 1953 trial stated that although his recollection of this trial was slight, he thought he had been appointed within a matter of minutes before Ford was tried. After the appointment he conferred with Ford in an office adjacent to the courtroom and told him of the seriousness of the crimes charged and the possibility of the death sentence if he pleaded not guilty. He advised him to plead guilty on all charges and to be tried that same day. After he told Ford that the Commonwealth's attorney would recommend sentences totaling seven years, Ford then pleaded guilty to the indictments.

The attorney also testified that he had a standard procedure over the years to advise clients that they could plead guilty or not guilty and what punishment they could receive upon conviction. He stated also that it was the practice of the judge presiding at Ford's trial to appoint lawyers for indigents immediately prior to the time of trial, and if the defendants pleaded guilty they would be tried right after the lawyer was appointed.

Ford testified that his interview with his court-appointed attorney lasted no longer than ten to fifteen minutes. He pleaded guilty to the charges upon the representation to him that he would receive not more than ten years on all of the charges. He related how he had committed the crimes charged and admitted that his chief complaint with the 1953 trial was that he had received too much time.

An accused's right to effective assistance of counsel is guaranteed by both the due process clause of the Federal Constitution and the Virginia Bill of Rights. Whitley v. Cunningham, 205 Va. 251, 252, 135 S.E.2d 823, 825 (1964); Morris v. Smyth, 202 Va. 832, 833, 120 S.E.2d 465, 466 (1961); Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335, 339, 83 S.Ct. 792, 9 L.Ed.2d 799, 93 A.L.R.2d 733.

The act...