Myers v. Manson

• Decision Date: 06 March 1984
• Citation: 472 A.2d 759,192 Conn. 383
• Court: Connecticut Supreme Court
• Parties: Leroy S. MYERS v. John R. MANSON, Warden, Connecticut Correctional Institution.

Page 759

472 A.2d 759

192 Conn. 383

Leroy S. MYERS v. John R. MANSON, Warden, Connecticut Correctional Institution.

Supreme Court of Connecticut.

Argued Dec. 1, 1983.

Decided March 6, 1984.

John R. Williams, New Haven, for appellant (plaintiff).

C. Robert Satti, State's Atty., for appellee (defendant).

Before SPEZIALE, C.J., and PETERS, HEALEY, PARSKEY and GRILLO, JJ.

PARSKEY, Associate Justice.

On December 2, 1980, the plaintiff pled guilty to possession of cocaine with intent to sell, in violation of General Statutes §§ 19-452 (now § 21a-245), 19-480(a) (now § 21a-277[a] and 53a-8, and conspiracy to possess cocaine with intent to sell, in violation of General Statutes §§ 19-452, 19-480 and 53a-48(a). He was sentenced by the Superior Court at New London, Hendel, J., for an effective term of not less than four and one-half years nor more than twenty-five years ¹ to be served at the Somers correctional institution. ² On March 22, 1981, the plaintiff filed a habeas petition, which was denied by the Superior Court at Hartford, Wright, J. On appeal of this denial, the plaintiff asserts that he was mentally incompetent at the time of his guilty plea, that he was deprived of the effective assistance of counsel, and that his misunderstanding of the terms of his plea agreement require that the guilty plea be vacated. We find no error.

The following facts were found by the habeas court. The plaintiff, a Florida building contractor, and a codefendant, James Grotton, ³ agreed in Florida to sell thirty-three ounces of cocaine to undercover officers from Connecticut for $47,000. On October 21, 1979, the officers, Grotton, and the plaintiff flew to Connecticut with the cocaine to collect the money, whereupon Grotton and the plaintiff were arrested. Because of the large amount of cocaine, the grand jury indicted the parties under General Statutes §§ 19-452, 19-480a(a) (now § 21a-278) and 53a-48(a) which required a mandatory minimum sentence of not less than five years nor more than twenty years and a maximum of life imprisonment. The plaintiff's counsel, Andrew Garson, arranged with assistant United States attorney Holly Fitzsimmons for the plaintiff to become an informer for the United States drug enforcement agency in return for her agreement not to prosecute him in federal court and to advise the state's attorney and the sentencing judge of his cooperation. The plaintiff's work as an informer enabled the U.S. attorney to indict eight defendants, seven of whom pled guilty. The plaintiff testified for the prosecution at the federal trial of the one defendant who did not plead guilty.

Because of the plaintiff's cooperation and his willingness to plead, the state's attorney entered into a plea bargain wherein he reduced the charges and recommended a sentence of not less than seven nor more than twenty-five years in return for a guilty plea. On December 2, 1980, the plaintiff changed his plea to guilty. Sentencing was scheduled for December 24, but was postponed until January 6, 1981, because of a suicide attempt by the plaintiff.

There was extensive testimony at the habeas hearing about the plaintiff's mental state at the time of the plea. From all of this testimony, much of it conflicting, ⁴ the court found the following: Between his arrest and sentencing, the plaintiff attempted suicide at least three times. The court and the state's attorney were notified of one attempt. Scott Grove, a Connecticut psychiatrist, examined the plaintiff, spoke with the plaintiff's wife, reviewed the records of the plaintiff's hospitalizations and the transcripts of the plea and sentencing hearings, and concluded that the plaintiff was suffering from a narcissistic personality disorder with major symptoms of depression, but that he was not psychotic. Hans Langhammer, a psychiatrist who examined the plaintiff for drug dependency in December, 1979, found the plaintiff to be very rational, and upon reading the transcripts of the court proceedings, the report of Grove, and the presentence report, concluded that the plaintiff was able to understand the nature of the proceedings and could cooperate with counsel. United States attorney Holly Fitzsimmons testified that the plaintiff had complete understanding of the federal trial in which he had testified. On the morning of his sentencing, the plaintiff had two to three drinks. From all of this evidence the court concluded that it was clear that the plaintiff "was under severe mental stress after his arrest" but that "[a]n examination of the transcripts of December 2, 1980 and January 6, 1981 shows that the inquiries by the court and the petitioner's responses manifest a rational and intelligent understanding by the petitioner of all the events of those dates."

I

We first discuss the threshold issue of who, in the habeas action, bore the burden of proving competency at the time of the guilty plea. A habeas corpus petition often arises long after memories have faded and evidence has disappeared. This collateral attack of a conviction conflicts with the strong interest in the finality of judgments and the interest in orderly trial procedure. Henderson v. Kibbe, 431 U.S. 145, 154, 97 S.Ct. 1730, 1736-37, 52 L.Ed.2d 203 (1976). As a result, the plaintiff in a habeas corpus proceeding bears a heavy burden of proof. The plaintiff asserts that in this case the burden should have shifted to the state. The basis for this claim is that the trial court was informed of the plaintiff's suicide attempt between the plea and sentencing and hence should have conducted a hearing on the plaintiff's competency ⁵ or allowed him to withdraw his plea. ⁶ The plaintiff cites two federal cases for the proposition that the court's failure shifted the burden of proof to the state. We find these cases factually distinguishable.

In Osborne v. Thompson, 610 F.2d 461 (6th Cir.1979), the state trial court was confronted with a psychiatric report which disclosed that the petitioner "had a chronic mental illness" and concluded that he was "marginally" competent. The court accepted his guilty plea but reserved imposition of judgment for four months. Prior to the expiration of the four-month period, when the petitioner appeared before the court again, it found him "mentally incompetent" and ordered him to a state hospital which, two months later, reported him to be "borderline competent" and "suffering from mental retardation." Despite this, the court denied the petitioner's motion to withdraw his guilty plea and rendered judgment. In upholding the granting of the habeas petition, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit held that in the face of all this evidence, the state trial judge should have conducted a hearing, prior to the judgment, on the petitioner's competency to plead guilty or granted his motion to withdraw his plea. Id., 462-63. In United States v. Hollis, 569 F.2d 199, 207 (3d Cir.1977), the court held that when a petitioner has raised the issue of incompetency prior to pleading guilty but is not afforded a hearing, then at the habeas hearing the burden shifts to the state. In creating this exception to the general burden of proof rule, the court noted that it was "a limited one confined to the facts of this case." Id., 207 n. 14.

The evidence raising the issue of incompetence in Osborne and Hollis was formidable. In contrast, in the present case the only information the trial judge had pertaining to the plaintiff's mental state concerned the suicide attempt after the plea and before sentencing. Though we recognize the seriousness of such an act, we can not say that it required the trial judge to hold a hearing on the plaintiff's competence or that the burden of proof shifted to the state at the habeas hearing.

The plaintiff next avers that there is a stricter legal test for the determination of a defendant's competency to plead than for the determination of a defendant's competency to stand trial or be sentenced. He claims that the habeas court failed either to articulate or to apply to the facts of this case these differing tests and requests that this court remand for a finding in light of the appropriate standard or hold as a matter of law that the plaintiff was incompetent to plead. We decline to do either.

General Statutes § 54-56d(a), ⁷ which sets the standard for competency to stand trial, provides that "a defendant is not competent if he is unable to understand the proceedings against him or to assist in his own defense." This conforms to the standard enunciated in Dusky v. United States, 362 U.S. 402, 80 S.Ct. 788, 4 L.Ed.2d 824 (1960). Though there is no separate statute that sets the standard for competency to plead guilty or to be sentenced, our cases have held that a guilty plea " 'cannot be truly voluntary unless the defendant possesses an understanding of the law in relation to the facts.' McCarthy v. United States, 394 U.S. 459, 466, 89 S.Ct. 1166 [1171], 22 L.Ed.2d 418 (1969)"; State v. Torres, 182 Conn. 176, 184, 438 A.2d 46 (1980); State v. Marra, 174 Conn. 338, 340, 387 A.2d 550 (1978); that it must represent "a voluntary and intelligent choice among the alternative courses of action open to the defendant"; State v. Battle, 170 Conn. 469, 474-75, 365 A.2d 1100 (1976), quoting North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25, 31, 91 S.Ct. 160, 164, 27 L.Ed.2d 162 (1970); State v. Deboben, 187 Conn. 469, 476, 446 A.2d 828 (1982); or that the record must disclose that "such an act was voluntary, knowing, intelligent and done with sufficient awareness of the relevant circumstances and likely consequences ...." Consiglio v. Warden, 160 Conn. 151, 166, 276 A.2d 773 (1970); Buckley v. Warden, 177 Conn. 538, 542, 418 A.2d 913 (1979).

Implicit in the scrutiny of the plea at the trial level and on appeal is an inquiry into whether the defendant was competent to plead. Indeed, if the defendant does not possess an understanding of the law in relation to the facts, can not...