Hudgins v. United States

• Decision Date: 20 January 1965
• Docket Number: No. 14818.,14818.
• Parties: Clarence HUDGINS, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Third Circuit

340 F.2d 391 (1965)

Clarence HUDGINS, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America.

No. 14818.

United States Court of Appeals Third Circuit.

Submitted November 9, 1964.

Decided January 20, 1965.

Clarence Hudgins, pro se.

Drew J. T. O'Keefe, U. S. Atty., Philadelphia, Pa., for appellee.

Before BIGGS, Chief Judge, and FORMAN and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

BIGGS, Chief Judge.

Hudgins was indicted for the crime of robbing a bank. See 18 U.S.C. § 2113 (b) and (f). He was represented by an experienced counsel of his own selection, Donald Goldberg, Esquire, of the Bar of Pennsylvania. Prior to the impanelling of a jury, Hudgins' counsel moved to suppress certain physical exhibits and statements made by Hudgins to federal agents. After a hearing, this motion was denied. Hudgins' counsel then informed the court that Hudgins wished to change his plea of not guilty to guilty. The trial judge made a fair and lucid explanation to Hudgins of his rights and the penalties which might be imposed upon him if his guilty plea was accepted. The court stated to Hudgins that he understood that the proposed change of plea had been discussed by Hudgins with his counsel. The trial judge then asked Hudgins if he understood that if he pleaded guilty as charged the court could impose a maximum penalty of imprisonment for ten years or a fine in an amount as large as $5,000, or both. Hudgins replied: "I do." The trial judge then made a further explanation to Hudgins in respect to the amount which had been stolen from the bank, pointing out that Hudgins was accused of stealing $23,449 in currency and that the pertinent statute provided a maximum ten year penalty and a maximum of $5,000 fine or both if the amount stolen was proved to be in excess of $100. He then asked Hudgins the question: "Do you understand the offense with which you are charged?" Hudgins replied: "Yes, sir."

The court then inquired: "You wish to enter a plea of guilty?" Hudgins replied: "I feel that I am just incapable of making any plea, right at this time. My mind is all confused." The court then said that he felt that Hudgins had a difficult decision to make and that if Hudgins felt that he was not able to enter a plea of guilty that he, the trial judge, thought the trial should be proceeded with. From the bench he made a brief but rather complete statement as to the procedure which might be followed if Hudgins pleaded guilty and stated that Hudgins should have ample time to consider the course which he desired to pursue,¹ and whether or not it would be in his best interests to plead guilty. The court then took a long noon recess and after the recess, upon the court reconvening, Hudgins' trial was commenced. But on the following day, apparently in the morning, after conferring again with his counsel, Hudgins entered a plea of guilty. The trial court, after making a determination in accordance with Rule 11, Fed.R.Crim.Proc., 18 U.S.C., to the effect that the plea was made "voluntarily with understanding of the nature of the charge," accepted the plea.² See Machibroda v. United States, 368 U.S. 487, 82 S.Ct. 510, 7 L.Ed.2d 473 (1962); Waley v. Johnston, 316 U.S. 101, 62 S.Ct. 964, 86 L.Ed. 1302 (1942); Walker v. Johnston, 312 U.S. 275, 61 S.Ct. 574, 85 L.Ed. 830 (1941); Kercheval v. United States, 274 U.S. 220, 47 S.Ct. 582, 71 L.Ed. 1009 (1927).³ Sentence was pronounced upon Hudgins more than a month after his plea of guilty had been entered.⁴ Before sentencing Hudgins the trial court asked as to whether or not Hudgins had anything to say in mitigation of the sentence which might be imposed upon him. At this point Hudgins made statements indicating his desire to repent and to effect restitution. Immediately after sentence was imposed, Hudgins himself, his counsel being present, announced that he had been coerced into pleading guilty and indicated dissatisfaction with his guilty plea. At this point his counsel, Mr. Goldberg, asked to be relieved from representing Hudgins further. The court granted Mr. Goldberg leave to withdraw. Hudgins attempted to have the court grant him a hearing then and there upon his claim of coercion. The court refused to hear him at that time but informed him that he could write to the court and give the court any grounds that he might have for granting the relief that he sought.

Thereafter, on August 5, 1963, Hudgins set a letter to the trial judge stating that he had forwarded a filing fee of $15.00, "relating to the pending application submitted in accordance with 28 U.S.C.A. Section 1915, which constitutes a preliminary application under 28 U.S. C.A. Section 2255. * * *" He requested a transcript of the proceedings, "complete as is possible" and requested a new trial, giving as his reasons that his "defense was not diligently represented sic nor was it properly prepared." He went on to say: "The ambiguous statements, to me, from my attorney caused me to plead guilty. I plead guilty on his advice." This was followed by more letters to the trial judge, the contents of which need not be set out here, and by an affidavit executed by Hudgins stating that he was a pauper. This affidavit was treated by the trial judge as an application to proceed in forma pauperis. The court below ordered that he be supplied with a partial transcript of proceedings and a transcript of the hearing on April 15, 1963 on the motion for the return of the seized property and the suppression of evidence. At some point not clear from the record, William J. Stevens, Jr., Esquire, an assistant voluntary defender of the City of Philadelphia, appeared for Hudgins at the request of the trial judge and a pretrial hearing was had and a pretrial stipulation and order were filed. A supplemental pretrial order was later made in which the court in substance decided that Hudgins' plea could not be deemed frivolous. Hudgins was brought back into court and on October 8, 1963 he was granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis. On December 31, 1963, the trial judge filed a memorandum opinion⁵ and an order refusing to permit Hudgins to withdraw his guilty plea and refusing to vacate his sentence. The appeal at bar followed. The court below granted Hudgins leave to proceed with his appeal in forma pauperis.

Two issues are presented for determination. First, Hudgins asserts in substance that the original search and seizure conducted by the federal agents was illegal and that this caused him to enter a plea of guilty when his counsel's motion to suppress the physical evidence and the statements given by him to federal agents was denied. Second, Hudgins asserts that he was coerced into entering the plea of guilty.⁶

Section 2255, Title 28 U.S.C., supplies a valid means to challenge the constitutional validity of a guilty plea. Machibroda v. United States, supra; Palmer v. Ashe, 342 U.S. 134, 72 S.Ct. 191, 96 L.Ed. 154 (1951). A conviction based on a coerced plea of guilty is void. Machibroda v. United States, supra. Ordinarily after a plea of guilty has been entered a collateral attack alleging errors in the admission of evidence, where the trial has been a partial one, or in proceedings prior to sentence is not permitted. This is because a plea of guilty stands as a plea to the indictment and "is itself a conviction." Kercheval v. United States, supra, 274 U.S. at 223, 47 S.Ct. at 583; Gawantka v. United States, 327 F.2d 129 (3 Cir.), cert. denied, 377 U.S. 969, 84 S.Ct. 1650, 12 L.Ed.2d 738 (1964); United States v. Williams, 212 F.2d 786 (7 Cir. 1954); United States v. Gallagher, 183 F.2d 342 (3 Cir. 1950), cert. denied, 340 U.S. 913, 71 S.Ct. 283, 95 L.Ed. 659 (1951). But where a defendant asserts that a denial of a motion to suppress evidence was a coercive factor in causing him to change his plea, the court in a Section 2255 proceeding, i. e., upon a collateral attack, may review any alleged error insofar as it is relevant to the voluntariness of the guilty plea. Com. of Pennsylvania ex rel. Herman v. Claudy, 350 U.S. 116, 76 S.Ct. 223, 100 L.Ed. 126 (1956). This was well put by Judge Freedman in United States ex rel. Perpiglia v. Rundle, 221 F.Supp. 1003, 1006 (E.D.Pa.1963). Judge Freedman stated: "A plea of guilty forecloses a defense, but it does not seal off subsequent inquiry whether the plea itself was freely and voluntarily entered." This brings us to the two issues raised by Hudgins. These two issues, as will be seen, tend to merge. We will deal with them immediately.

1. Was the denial of Hudgins' motion to suppress certain physical evidence and the statements made by him to federal agents in accordance with law? We cannot perceive how the doctrine of the Claudy decision, supra, can aid Hudgins here. In that case the defendant alleged in effect that his confession and subsequent guilty plea were coerced and that he had been denied a hearing by the United States district court on this issue. The circumstances of the Perpiglia case, supra, in which it was alleged that the confession and subsequent guilty plea were coerced, were similar though apparently more aggravated. But the substantive contention of Hudgins is that the allegedly erroneous ruling of the trial court as to the admissibility of the evidence caused his plea of guilty; in other words that he would not have entered the plea of guilty had it not been for the court's allegedly wrong ruling on the issue of suppression. But assuming arguendo, though we expressly do not so hold, that the ruling of the court below was in error on the issue of suppression, nonetheless Hudgins had a right to appeal this issue along with any others properly raised, had he been convicted after a trial. See Beck v. State of Ohio, 85 S.Ct. 223 (1964) and United States v. Jeffers, 342 U.S. 48, 72 S.Ct. 93, 96 L.Ed. 59 (1951). Hudgins was represented by competent counsel and it must be assumed that this was a consideration which he and his counsel weighed in arriving at his decision to change his not guilty plea to one of guilty. Moreover,...