Landry v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts

• Decision Date: 01 July 1964
• Docket Number: Civ. No. 64-32-C.
• Citation: 231 F. Supp. 182
• Parties: John H. LANDRY, Petitioner, v. COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS, Respondent.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Massachusetts

231 F. Supp. 182

John H. LANDRY, Petitioner, v. COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS, Respondent.

Civ. No. 64-32-C.

United States District Court D. Massachusetts.

July 1, 1964.

John H. Landry, pro se.

Edward W. Brooke, Atty. Gen., James W. Bailey, Asst. Gen., for defendant.

CAFFREY, District Judge.

John H. Landry, presently incarcerated in the Massachusetts Correctional Institution, Norfolk, Massachusetts, as a result of three concurrent 20 to 25 year sentences imposed on him on April 11, 1959 in Middlesex County Superior Court for armed robbery, has filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus. Petitioner says that pleas of guilty, on the basis of which he was convicted and incarcerated, were not voluntary but were induced by his fear that if he proceeded to trial he would have had to remain in a wire mesh cage located in the Middlesex County Courtroom where he would have been exposed to shame and ridicule, and where he would have been unable to see or hear much of what went on at the witness box and at the bench. He further alleges that he was prejudiced by a "grossly mistaken finding of fact by a Supreme Court Justice." And he further claims that he was prejudiced by refusal of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court to appoint counsel for him when he attempted to appeal the findings of fact by the single Justice of the Supreme Judicial Court who had held a hearing on petitioner's motion to vacate the guilty pleas.

The Attorney General of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts filed a memorandum of law urging that the petition for writ of habeas corpus be denied. This Court today held an evidentiary type hearing, at which the petitioner and the Commonwealth were represented by counsel, because the supporting papers filed by petitioner failed to disclose whether or not the single Justice had previously conducted an evidentiary type hearing prior to resolving the factual dispute between the petitioner and the Commonwealth, and because the papers filed did not include a transcript of whatever evidence was offered at that hearing or any adequate substitute therefor, one or the other of which the Supreme Court has told us, in Townsend v. Sain, 372 U.S. 293, 319, 83 S.Ct. 745, 760, 9 L.Ed.2d 770, "is indispensable to determining whether the habeas applicant received a full and fair state-court evidentiary hearing resulting in reliable findings."

I find on the basis of testimony offered this date that the single Justice employed a fact-finding procedure which was adequate to afford a full and fair hearing to petitioner; that petitioner had the opportunity to and did adequately develop the material facts of this controversy at the state court hearing; that the merits of petitioner's factual dispute were resolved at that hearing; that the single Justice's factual determination is fairly supported by the record as a whole; there is no substantial allegation herein of any newly discovered evidence; and, finally, it does not appear for any reason that petitioner did not have a full and fair fact hearing before the single Justice.

At the conclusion of the hearing this morning petitioner advised the...