Sessions v. Wilson

• Decision Date: 30 January 1967
• Docket Number: No. 20861.,20861.
• Citation: 372 F.2d 366
• Parties: Jackie Lee SESSIONS, Petitioner and Appellant, v. Lawrence E. WILSON, Warden California State Prison, San Quentin, California, Respondent and Appellee.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit

372 F.2d 366 (1967)

Jackie Lee SESSIONS, Petitioner and Appellant, v. Lawrence E. WILSON, Warden California State Prison, San Quentin, California, Respondent and Appellee.

No. 20861.

United States Court of Appeals Ninth Circuit.

November 28, 1966.

Dissenting Opinion January 30, 1967.

Jackie Lee Sessions, in pro. per.

Thomas C. Lynch, Atty. Gen. of Cal., Robert R. Granucci and Jackson L. Smith, Deputy Attys. Gen., San Francisco, Cal., for appellee.

Before CHAMBERS, HAMLEY and CECIL,^* Circuit Judges.

HAMLEY, Circuit Judge:

In January, 1957, in the Kern County, California Superior Court, Jackie Lee Sessions was convicted on his plea of guilty to the crime of armed robbery. Sessions, then eighteen years of age, was sentenced to imprisonment for from five years to life, and is presently confined at California State Prison, San Quentin, California. On January 13, 1966, he applied to the district court for a writ of habeas corpus. The application was denied, without hearing, on the day it was filed. Sessions appeals.

Sessions alleged in his application that he was interrogated while in police custody without being informed of his right to remain silent and his right to the assistance of counsel, that his request for such assistance at that time was denied, and that during the course of that interrogation the police officers made certain promises and threats.¹ Sessions alleged that, as a result of this interrogation, he involuntarily made certain incriminating statements which were testified to by police officers at his preliminary hearing. He also alleged that, as a result of this interrogation, he involuntarily signed a confession which was introduced in evidence at his preliminary hearing.

Sessions further alleged in his application that a revolver, obtained as a result of an unreasonable search and seizure, was introduced in evidence against him at the preliminary hearing. Additionally, he alleged that he did not have the assistance of counsel at the preliminary hearing and was not advised that he could remain silent. As a result of all of the circumstances described above Sessions averred, in effect, that he took the witness stand at the preliminary hearing and, without understanding his rights, involuntarily confessed to the crime.

Finally, Sessions alleged, his plea of guilty was brought about by duress, occasioned by the reception, at the preliminary hearing, of his signed confession, and of evidence pertaining to his incriminating statements, and of his own testimony at that hearing, all of which were assertedly the product of coercion and duress.

On this appeal Sessions argues, in effect, that his application states a prima facie case for habeas corpus relief, and that it was therefore error to deny his application without a hearing.

As indicated above, one of the allegations on which Sessions relies is that a revolver, which was obtained as a result of an illegal search and seizure, was received in evidence against him at the preliminary hearing.

Assuming that the seizure of the revolver was illegal under the Fourth Amendment, its use against Sessions at the 1957 preliminary hearing does not provide a basis for habeas corpus relief. The exclusionary rule applicable to the states was declared by the Supreme Court in Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643, 81 S.Ct. 1684, 6 L.Ed.2d 1081, decided on June 19, 1961. In Linkletter v. Walker, 381 U.S. 618, 85 S.Ct. 1731, 14 L.Ed.2d 601, it was held that the exclusionary rule of Mapp would not be applied retroactively.

Sessions also alleges that he is entitled to a habeas hearing because he was not advised at the preliminary hearing that he was not required to testify. As noted above, he took the witness stand at that hearing and confessed to the crime.

Examination of the transcript of the preliminary hearing indicates that Sessions was not explicitly advised of his right to remain silent. Given a choice between two procedures, Sessions chose to take the witness stand immediately and testify regarding the charges.² The court told Sessions that if he admitted the charges, he could be held to answer for them in the Superior Court, and that any statement he might make on the witness stand could be used against him.

We do not believe the constitutional question Sessions thus seeks to raise is squarely presented here. While Sessions was not explicitly warned of his right to remain silent, he was told on two different occasions that he need not take the witness stand unless he wished to. He chose to take the stand immediately in preference to the other suggested procedure, described in note 2, concerning which no indication was given that he would be expected to testify. More importantly, Sessions has not alleged that he did not, of his own knowledge, understand that he was entitled to remain silent at the time of the preliminary hearing. Under these circumstances we do not believe Sessions has a good Fifth Amendment point.

Sessions also alleged in his application that he is entitled to a hearing because law enforcement officers failed to follow approved procedure for in-custody interrogation. He averred that during his interrogation he was not advised of his right to remain silent, and to his right to the assistance of counsel, and that his request for such assistance at that time was denied.

If this advice was not given, and if this request was denied, interrogating officers did not comply with the requirements announced in Escobedo v. State of Illinois, 378 U.S. 478, 84 S.Ct. 1758, 12 L.Ed.2d 977, and Miranda v. State of Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694. However, apart from Sessions' allegation that his incriminating statements and confession, given as a result of this interrogation, were involuntary, his allegation that the interrogating officers did not comply with the specifics of Escobedo and Miranda provides no basis for habeas corpus relief. Sessions was convicted on January 15, 1957. Both Escobedo and Miranda were decided after that date, and neither is to be applied retroactively. See Johnson v. State of New Jersey, 384 U.S. 719, 722, 86 S.Ct. 1772, 16 L.Ed.2d 882; Davis v. State of North Carolina, 384 U.S. 737, 740, 86 S.Ct. 1761, 16 L.Ed.2d 895.

As the Court pointed out in both Johnson and Davis however, the non-retroactivity of Escobedo and Miranda does not affect a court's duty to consider the voluntariness of statements under the standards of voluntariness which had evolved prior to those decisions. The substantive test of voluntariness takes account of a failure to advise an accused of his privilege against self-incrimination or failure to allow him access to outside assistance. See Gladden v. Holland, 9 Cir., 366 F.2d 580, decided August 29, 1966. Here there is the additional allegation that the confession was the product of promises and threats by the interrogating officers.

Sessions entered a plea of guilty. This would ordinarily foreclose any relief on the ground that the prior incriminating statements and confession were involuntary. Sessions alleged in his application, however, that the incriminating statements and confession assertedly obtained from him by duress and coercion at the preliminary hearing "* * * placed `Duress' upon petitioner to enter a plea of `guilty'. * * *" In view of that allegation, the question of the voluntariness of the incriminating statements and of the confession were relevant to determine whether the plea of guilty was voluntary, and so that question was not foreclosed by the plea. See Gladden v. Holland, supra.

We hold that the allegation that the plea of guilty was involuntary, supported by the additional allegations concerning the way in which the police interrogation was conducted, stated a prima facie case for habeas corpus relief which should not have been denied without calling for a return to the application, and granting an evidentiary hearing.

Sessions also alleged in his application that he is entitled to a hearing because he did not have assistance of counsel at his preliminary hearing. The warden argues, however, that in California the preliminary examination is not a critical stage in the criminal proceedings which would constitutionally require appointment of counsel, citing Wilson v. Harris, 9 Cir., 351 F.2d 840.

This court did not so rule in Harris. The decision there announced contains four holdings: (1) under California law a preliminary examination is not "in and of itself" a critical stage in the judicial proceedings such as to constitutionally require the appointment of counsel at all such hearings; (2) a California preliminary hearing may be "critical," however, under the circumstances of a particular case and it is therefore necessary to examine the circumstances of each case; (3) such a hearing is critical if the events which transpire at that hearing are likely to prejudice the effectiveness of legal assistance in the subsequent proceedings; and (4) applying that test to the particular circumstances of the Harris case, that preliminary hearing was not critical.

The pertinent question here, then, is whether in view of the events which transpired at Sessions' preliminary hearing, as described above, the effectiveness of his legal assistance in subsequent proceedings was impaired. This cannot be determined from the face of the application. The court, therefore, was put on inquiry as to whether the preliminary hearing was critical in this case. Yet the district court conducted no such inquiry, and denied the application without hearing.

There is also the further question of whether Sessions knowingly and intelligently waived counsel at his preliminary hearing. Examination of the transcript of that hearing indicates that Sessions was advised by the court that he was entitled to counsel and that one would be appointed by the court if Sessions desired. In response, Sessions told the court that he did not want an attorney.

An accused, in the exercise of a free and...