Javor v. U.S.

• Decision Date: 26 January 1984
• Docket Number: No. 81-5532,81-5532
• Citation: 724 F.2d 831
• Parties: Eddie G. JAVOR, Petitioner-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Respondent-Appellee.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit

Page 831

724 F.2d 831

Eddie G. JAVOR, Petitioner-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 81-5532.

United States Court of Appeals Ninth Circuit.

Argued July 8, 1982.

Submitted Aug. 20, 1983.

Decided Jan. 26, 1984.

Eddie G. Javor, in pro. per.

Daniel Gonzalez, Asst. U.S. Atty., Los Angeles, Cal., for respondent-appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California.

Before ANDERSON, FERGUSON and REINHARDT, Circuit Judges.

FERGUSON, Circuit Judge:

Petitioner-appellant Eddie G. Javor was convicted in 1965 on two counts of an indictment charging possession and sale of heroin in violation of 21 U.S.C. Sec. 174 after a two-week jury trial in which he was one of three defendants. He was sentenced to seven years imprisonment.

His direct appeal from this conviction resulted in a decision remanding his case for further proceedings in the district court. Javor v. United States, 403 F.2d 507 (9th Cir.1968). When petitioner's judgment of conviction was reinstated by the district court, his appeal was unsuccessful and the judgment was affirmed. United States v. Rice, 435 F.2d 836 (9th Cir.1970), cert. denied, 404 U.S. 864, 92 S.Ct. 44, 30 L.Ed.2d 107 (1971).

On December 14, 1971, petitioner filed a motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2255 for relief from the district court judgment. Three months later he filed a second motion for a new trial and a motion for reduction of sentence. Though his motion for a new trial was denied, the district court reduced his sentence from seven to five years' imprisonment. On February 3, 1972, it denied petitioner's motion for postconviction relief under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2255. The ruling was affirmed by this court. Javor v. United States, 467 F.2d 481 (9th Cir.1972), cert. denied, 411 U.S. 932, 93 S.Ct. 1898, 36 L.Ed.2d 391 (1973).

In June 1973, petitioner filed a second motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2255, which the district court denied. This ruling was affirmed on appeal. Javor v. United States, No. 74-1795, Memorandum Opinion (9th Cir. Sept. 4, 1975). Petitioner spent September 1973 through May 1974 in custody before being released on bail pending appeal.

From prison, petitioner filed an original petition for writ of habeas corpus with this court in December 1975 based on violation of his sixth amendment right to the assistance of counsel. The petition was dismissed on May 23, 1978 for failure to prosecute what was mistakenly believed to be a direct appeal from the district court. On December 26, 1978, the dismissal order was vacated, and the petition was ordered reinstated and referred to the district court for consideration. Because the original trial judge, the Honorable Jesse W. Curtis, Senior United States District Judge, had disqualified himself at petitioner's request from further proceedings in the case, the Honorable Lawrence T. Lydick, United States District Judge, was assigned to hear the petition. The petition was referred to the Honorable Ralph J. Geffen, United States Magistrate, for his report and recommended judgment.

The magistrate held a bifurcated evidentiary hearing on the petition. After the first phase was completed on November 25, 1980, the magistrate proposed findings of fact and the conclusion of law that petitioner's retained trial attorney, Samuel S. Brody, had not given representation within the range of competence demanded of attorneys in criminal proceedings. ¹ The magistrate found:

that petitioner's trial counsel was asleep or dozing, and not alert to proceedings, during a substantial part of the trial of petitioner and his two co-defendants; that by reason thereof petitioner was not assisted by counsel at a substantial portion of the trial, including some occasions when evidence relevant to the prosecution case against defendant and very likely to his defense was being elicited and the participation of trial counsel (to observe witnesses, listen to testimony, consider the posing of objections, prepare cross-examination of witnesses, consider the preparation of rebuttal evidence, and prepare argument on such evidence) was proper; that such conduct was not usual or customary by defense counsel, but was, on the contrary, rare, if ever.

After the second phase was completed on February 11, 1981, the magistrate proposed findings of fact and his conclusion of law that though petitioner had not received the competent assistance of his counsel, he had failed to show that prejudice resulted. The magistrate's recommendation that the petition for writ of habeas corpus be denied was adopted by the district court.

Petitioner filed a notice of appeal from the district court's judgment on June 11, 1981. He is not in custody, having completed service of his sentence.

On July 29, 1982, this panel issued an order remanding the case to the district court for further proceedings in the interest of justice and out of a sense of fundamental fairness. We ordered an evidentiary hearing to determine whether any prejudice resulted to the petitioner as the result of the conduct of his attorney during the 1965 trial.

We stated:

We cannot determine from the record before us whether it is necessary to reach the question that Javor urges us to decide: whether the fact that counsel slept during portions of the trial affecting defendant constitutes prejudice per se. See Cooper v. Fitzharris, 586 F.2d 1325, 1331 (9th Cir.1978), cert. denied, 440 U.S. 974 [99 S.Ct. 1542, 59 L.Ed.2d 793] (1978). We believe that the development of a more complete record reflecting the extent, if any, to which actual prejudice occurred is desirable. We do not determine at this time the degree of prejudice that will comply with Cooper when the case involves sleeping counsel.

The district court referred the matter for a report and recommendation to the magistrate who had originally considered the petition for writ of habeas corpus, the Honorable Ralph J. Geffen. The hearing was held on the reporter's transcript of the original trial and no additional evidence was received.

The magistrate determined that the petitioner had failed to show that he suffered actual prejudice by his attorney's conduct. Contrary to the conclusion reached after an evidentiary hearing in 1980, the magistrate stated:

As a result of a careful reading and study of the entire trial transcript, with particular attention to portions thereof to which petitioner directed attention, it is found that petitioner's attorney made appropriate motions and objections, gave vigorous and legally adequate argument in support thereof, and was frequently successful in convincing the court, and that he presented a vigorous and effective examination and cross-examination of witnesses and presented as adequate a defense as the facts appear to have permitted.

The magistrate's supplemental report was adopted by the district court and the case is now ready for adjudication.

When we remanded this case to the magistrate, we expressly declined to determine what degree of prejudice was required on these facts. The original report determined that Javor's attorney was asleep during a substantial portion of Javor's trial, that he failed to participate when evidence against Javor was being heard, and that the judge was at times concerned about his inattentiveness. The second report concluded that, nevertheless, the defense offered was "adequate" and did not prejudice Javor. This conclusion was based on a review of a record which lacked any indication of when Javor's attorney was alert and when he was asleep. The difficulty in proving prejudice on a record which cannot show "absence" or failure to act is illustrated by these two reports--the first which solidly found incompetence by virtue of absence, and second which was based on Javor's attorney's participation when awake and discounted the fact of his absence to find that Javor had adequate assistance.

Today we conclude that when an attorney for a criminal defendant sleeps through a substantial portion of the trial, such conduct is inherently prejudicial and thus no separate showing of prejudice is necessary. See Holloway v. Arkansas, 435 U.S. 475, 489-91, 98 S.Ct. 1173, 1181-82, 55 L.Ed.2d 426 (1978); cf. Rinker v. County of Napa, 724 F.2d 1352 at 1354 (9th Cir. 1983) (per curiam). Javor's sixth amendment right to counsel was violated not because of specific legal errors or omissions indicating incompetence, but because he had no legal assistance during a substantial portion of his trial. The magistrate's finding of no actual prejudice is not controlling because regardless of counsel's participation when present, when a defendant is tried in the partial absence of counsel, he is prejudiced as a matter of law. Id.

Prejudice is inherent in this case because unconscious or sleeping counsel is equivalent to no counsel at all. The mere physical presence of an attorney does not fulfill the sixth amendment entitlement to the assistance of counsel, Holloway v. Arkansas, 435 U.S. at 489, 98 S.Ct. at 1181, particularly when the client cannot consult with his or her attorney or receive informed guidance from him or her during the course of the trial. Geders v. United States, 425 U.S. 80, 88-89, 96 S.Ct. 1330, 1335-1336, 47 L.Ed.2d 592 (1976). See also People v. Zammora, 66 Cal.App.2d 166, 234-37, 152 P.2d 180, 211-15 (1944) (counsel and defendants seated separately, making consultation impossible); State v. Keller, 57 N.D. 645, 223 N.W. 698, 64 A.L.R. 434 (1929) (counsel "intoxicated to such an extent that he did not know what was transpiring at all times in the court room"). The prejudice inherent in Javor's counsel's actions is well illustrated by considering the ongoing consultation ordinarily required in the course of a criminal trial. Generally an attorney and client need to confer about the testimony or evidence adduced at trial and together evaluate its impact. Geders v. United States, 425 U.S. at 88, 96 S.Ct. at 1335; People v....