Townsend v. Burke
Citation | 68 S.Ct. 1252,92 L.Ed. 1690,334 U.S. 736 |
Decision Date | 14 June 1948 |
Docket Number | No. 542,542 |
Parties | TOWNSEND v. BURKE |
Court | United States Supreme Court |
Mr. Archibald Cox, of Cambridge, Mass., for petitioner.
Mr. Franklin E. Barr, of Philadelphia, Pa., for respondent.
The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania holds petitioner prisoner under two indeterminate sentences, not exceeding 10 to 20 years, upon a plea of guilty to burglary and robbery. On review here of the State Supreme Court's denial of habeas corpus,1 the prisoner demands a discharge by this Court on federal constitutional grounds.
Petitioner, while a fugitive, was indicted on June 1, 1945, for burglary and armed robbery. Four of his alleged accomplices had been arrested on May 18, 1945, and signed a joint confession, while a fifth had been arrested on May 21, 1945, and had also June 3, 1945, and confessed on June 4. On confessed. Petitioner was arrested on June 5, after pleading guilty to two charges of robbery and two charges of burglary and not guilty to other charges, he was sentenced.
Petitioner now alleges violation of his constitutional rights in that, excet for a ten-minute conversation with his wife, he was held incommunicado for a period of 40 hours between his arrest and his plea of guilty. He does not allege that he was beaten, misused, threatened or intimidated, but only that he was held for that period and was several times interrogated. He does not allege that the questioning was continuous or that it had any coercive effect.
The plea for relief because he was detained as he claims, unlawfully is based on McNabb v. United States, 318 U.S. 332, 63 S.Ct. 608, 87 L.Ed. 819. But the rule there applied was one against use of confessions obtained during illegal detention and it was limited to federal courts, to which it was applied by virtue of our supervisory power. In this present case no confession was used because the plea of guilty in open court dispensed with proof of the crime. Hence, lawfulness of the detention is not a factor in determining admissibility of any confession and if he were temporarily detained illegally it would have no bearing on the validity of his present confinement based on his plea of guilty, particularly since he makes no allegation that it induced the plea.
Petitioner also relies on Haley v. Ohio, 332 U.S. 596, 68 S.Ct. 302, in which this Court reversed a state court murder conviction because it was believed to have been based on a confession wrung from an uncounseled 15-year-old boy held incommunicado during questioning by relays of police for several hours late at night. Even aside from the differing facts, that case provides no precedent for relief to this prisoner since, as has been said, no confession was used against him, and he does not allege that his pleas of guilty resulted from his allegedly illegal detention.
Petitioner also says that when he was brought into court to plead, he was not represented by counsel, offered assignment of counsel, advised of his right to counsel or instructed with particularity as to the nature of the crimes with which he was charged. This, he says, under the circumstances deprived his conviction and sentence of constitutional validity by reason of the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.2
Only recently a majority of this Court reaffirmed that the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment does not prohibit a State from accepting a plea of guilty in a non-capital case from an uncounseled defendant. Bute v. Illinois, 333 U.S. 640, 68 S.Ct. 763. In that, and in earlier cases, we have indicated, however, that the disadvantage from absence of counsel, when aggravated by circumstances showing that it resulted in the prisoner actually being taken advantage of, or prejudiced, does make out a case of violation of due process.
The proceedings as to this petitioner, following his plea of guilty, consisted of a recital by an officer of details of the crimes to which petitioner and others had pleaded guilty and of the following action by the court: (Italics supplied).
'By the Court (addressing Townsend):
'
'
'
'
The trial court's facetiousness casts a somewhat somber reflection on the fairness of the proceeding when we learn from the record that actually the charge of receiving the stolen saxophone had been dismissed and the prisoner discharged by the magistrate. But...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
U.S. v. Atlantic States Cast Iron Pipe Co.
...upon materially false information. See United States v. McDowell, 888 F.2d 285, 290 (3d Cir.1989) (citing Townsend v. Burke, 334 U.S. 736, 741, 68 S.Ct. 1252, 92 L.Ed. 1690 (1948) and United States v. Cifuentes, 863 F.2d 1149, 1153 (3d Cir.1988)). "In particular, due process in criminal sen......
-
McCullough v. Filion
...subject to review by a habeas court. See Fielding v. LeFevre, 548 F.2d 1102, 1109 (2d Cir.1977) (citing Townsend v. Burke, 334 U.S. 736, 741, 68 S.Ct. 1252, 92 L.Ed. 1690 (1948)). A challenge to the term of a sentence does not present a cognizable constitutional issue if the sentence falls ......
-
Jefferson v. Berkebile
...assumptions"). Not every mistake of fact by the sentencing judge is of a constitutional magnitude. See Townsend v. Burke, 334 U.S. 736, 741, 68 S.Ct. 1252, 92 L.Ed. 1690 (1948); United States v. Malcolm, 432 F.2d 809, 816 (2d Cir.1970). For a mistake to rise to the level of a due process vi......
-
In re Carter
...in the proceedings and the ability of the presence of counsel to protect against such prejudice and unfairness. See Townsend v. Burke, 334 U.S. 736, 740-41 (1948) (right to counsel violated where defendant was "disadvantaged by lack of counsel"); Moore v. Michigan, 355 U.S. 155, 160 (1957) ......
-
Sentencing
...prior arrests, even if they did not result in conviction. Mere arrests cannot be considered to enhance a sentence. [ Townsend v. Burke , 334 U.S. 736 (1948).] §22:36 Challenging the PSIR It is important to challenge inaccuracies in the PSIR and to ask the judge to order inaccurate allegatio......
-
The right to counsel and collateral sentence enhancement: in search of a rationale.
...he was sentencing a defendant with at least two prior unconstitutional convictions. See id. at 448. The Court relied on Townsend v. Burke, 334 U.S. 736 (1949), for the proposition that a defendant may not be sentenced on the basis of inaccurate information. See Tucker, 404 U.S. at 447. In T......
-
If You Cannot Afford an Attorney, Will One Be Appointed for You?: How (Some) States Force Criminal Defendants To Choose Between Posting Bond and Getting a Court-Appointed Attorney
...v. California, 372 U.S. 353 (1963) (appeals as of right); Hamilton v. Alabama, 368 U.S. 52 (1961) (arraignment); Townsend v. Burke, 334 U.S. 736 (1948) (sentencing proceedings). 44. See Fulton, supra note 11, at 1608–10. 45. See, e.g. , Holloway v. Arkansas, 435 U.S. 475 (1978); Glasser v. ......
-
The Effect of Attorney Type on Bail Decisions
...v. Frye, 566 U.S. ___ (2012).Powell v. Alabama, 287 U.S. 455 (1932).Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984).Townsend v. Burke, 334 U.S. 736 (1948).Author BiographyMarian R. Williams is a professor of Criminal Justice in the Department of Government and Justice Studies at Appalachian S......