U.S. v. Quin

• Decision Date: 15 September 1987
• Docket Number: No. 87-1349,87-1349
• Citation: 836 F.2d 654
• Parties: , 10 Fed.R.Serv.3d 189 UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Alan Peter QUIN, Defendant, Appellant.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — First Circuit

Page 654

836 F.2d 654

103 A.L.R.Fed. 855, 10 Fed.R.Serv.3d 189

UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Alan Peter QUIN, Defendant, Appellant.

No. 87-1349.

United States Court of Appeals, First Circuit.

Sept. 15, 1987.

Decided Jan. 8, 1988.

John M. Garcia with whom Elisa Bobonis Lang and John M. Garcia Law Offices, Hato Rey, P.R., were on brief, for defendant, appellant.

Warren Vazquez, Asst. U.S. Atty., with whom Daniel F. Lopez Romo, U.S. Atty., Hato Rey, P.R., was on brief, for appellee.

Before COFFIN, Circuit Judge, ALDRICH, Senior Circuit Judge, and LAGUEUX, ^* District Judge.

BAILEY ALDRICH, Senior Circuit Judge.

This 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2255 motion presents some troublesome questions, not the least of which are precisely what occurred and what is claimed. The court not only denied the motion, but imposed a $2,000 sanction upon counsel, pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 11, for "an unreasonable and vexatious twisting of criminal procedure [that was] disturbing and frivolous."

The facts were these. One Burke, as owner and master, and defendant Quin as crew, were the complement of an American vessel seized by the Coast Guard off the Virgin Islands and found to contain 41,000 pounds of marijuana. Following indictment of both, defendants filed a motion to suppress. Prior to testimony and hearing thereon, the following occurred in open court,

MR. WASHOR: Your Honor, the Defendant Quin is prepared to waive his right to a jury trial. In addition to which the Defendant Quin is prepared to proceed with a Motion to Suppress at the conclusion of the Motion to Suppress in the event that the Court is so inclined to deny the suppression hearing and rule favorably for the government, Defendant Quin is prepared to stipulate that the testimony adduced at the suppression hearing constitute along with a few additional stipulations [of jurisdictional facts] that had been agreed upon between government and Counsel, that said material constitute the entire trial so that this Court can rule the guilt or innocence of the Defendant Quin.

Following this, the judge having explained to the defendants that this would substitute himself for the jury, and they having expressed agreement, defendants executed what was, in terms, a waiver of jury, pursuant to Fed.R.Crim.P. 23(a). Manifestly, this was not a waiver of trial. We note, however, that Quin's counsel had previously stated in the lobby, "[I]t's equivalent to the defendant pleading guilty after the Motion to Suppress," an assertion not then contradicted by the government, and that somewhat bedevils the issues now before us. Given the content of the stipulated evidence, it did seem clear that, as a practical matter, only one result was possible if suppression was denied.

When this proposed program was carried out, the court denied the motion to suppress and made findings of guilty. United States v. Burke, 540 F.Supp. 1282 (D.P.R.1982). On appeal the only matter presented was the denial of the motion. ¹ We affirmed. United States v. Burke, 716 F.2d 935 (1st Cir.1983).

Quin is an Englishman and, although married to an American citizen, after having served some three years for this felony conviction without further complaint, he found himself faced with deportation proceedings. 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1251(a)(11) (1982). He then brought the present 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2255 motion, alleging,

Petitioner argues that he was denied effective assistance of counsel because his attorney failed to give him the basic information indispensible to petitioner's decisions as to whether to seek a trial by jury. Petitioner did not realize that a judgment would be rendered by the court without his being able to testify on his own behalf and without his being able to present defenses based on his knowledge of the activities in question and the circumstances of his presence on the boat. Additionally, petitioner's counsel's failure to impart any advise regarding the direct and indirect consequences of the stipulation left plaintiff without the knowledge that he was subject to deportation based upon his conviction.

Because the motion to suppress was denied, petitioner's decision to stipulate to a bench-trial was tantamount to a guilty plea in that petitioner was by virtue of the stipulation denied an opportunity to defend himself on the merits of the specific charges against him. He also thereby found himself subject to mandatory deportation. By neglecting to apprise petitioner of the most basic direct and inescapable collateral consequences of the stipulation in question, petitioner's counsel denied petitioner the effective assistance of counsel to which petitioner was entitled under the Constitution.

While sought to be more embracive, the basic thrust of defendant's argument is that he waived jury and acceded to a bench trial in ignorance of the deportation consequences of a guilty finding due to the failure of his counsel to inform him thereof; that this constituted constitutionally ineffective counsel, and that he is now entitled to start over. Passing the fact that deportation in this context is generally regarded as a collateral consequence, only, viz., legally irrelevant, even as to an outright guilty plea, United States v. Gavilan, 761 F.2d 226 (5th Cir.1985); United States v. Russell, 686 F.2d 35 (D.C.Cir.1982); Fruchtman v. Kenton, 531 F.2d 946 (9th Cir.1976), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 895, 97 S.Ct. 256, 50 L.Ed.2d 178; United States v. Santelises, 509 F.2d 703 (2d Cir.1975); but see Nunez Cordero v. United States, 533 F.2d 723 (1st Cir.1976), post, counsel is unable to suggest, nor can we conceive, any possible relationship, or bearing, that even the most direct consequences of a guilty finding could have upon a defendant's choosing between a jury and a bench trial. At issue here is the likelihood of a finding, not the consequences. Civil Rule 11 ² imposes a duty on counsel to be able to make some minimum showing, inferential or otherwise, to support his claim. ³ Here the claim was empty on its face. Cf. United States v. Campbell, 778 F.2d 764 (11th Cir.1985). ⁴ We could not fault the court's conclusion that insofar as the petition relied on a jury waiver, it was so palpably unreasonable as to warrant censure.

At the same time, defendants are entitled to representation, and Rule 11 is not intended to be an in terrorem obstacle. See Golden Eagle Distributing Corp. v. Burroughs Corp., 801 F.2d 1531, 1536-37 (9th Cir.1986). With this in mind we turn to defendant's attempt to analogize his conduct with a plea of guilty. Manifestly, deportation is a serious matter, and it is entirely rational to believe that the possibility of such a consequence would enter into a defendant's thinking when considering whether to plead. While we held in Nunez Cordero, ante, that the court had no duty to inquire or inform as to deportation consequences under Fed.R.Crim.P. 11(c) before accepting a guilty plea, we recognized that a court might consider such ignorance in assessing "fair and just" reason for withdrawal. The court in Government of Virgin Islands v. Pamphile, 604 F.Supp. 753 (D.V.I.1985), correctly read us as saying there could be a difference between the duty of the court, and the duty of effective counsel. The difficulty, however, is that we consider defendant's equating his refraining from testifying with a guilty plea a gross exaggeration. The prepared appendix does not show what this foregone testimony would have been, but we find a statement in the record. The most material part is that defendant "had no knowledge as to the contents of the cargo," and that, "as a crew member [he] had no control over the ship and thus could not prevent the captain of the vessel from taking the action he took on the high seas." The second of these allegations falls far short of suggesting that defendant was shanghaied, and the first is preposterous. Who could believe that on a vessel small enough to be handled by two men, loaded with 41,000 pounds of marijuana--which smelled even on deck--defendant was not aware of the content. Equally preposterous is defendant's claim that while he chose not to testify when he faced serious felony sentences, he would have testified had he known of deportation.

The contention that ineffective counsel caused defendant to commit a material mistake supports neither materiality nor causation.

We come to a further matter. Nunez Cordero involved an outright plea of guilty. Prior to sentence the defendant learned of the deportation consequence, and sought to withdraw his plea. The court refused. We recognized the court's having discretion, and supported its failure to exercise it in defendant's favor, even though, because of the timetable, the government was not prejudiced. How here, where the government would be heavily prejudiced, could it possibly be thought that we would reverse? In light of Nunez Cordero, of which counsel was aware, failure was foreordained and the appeal was totally frivolous, except as to the sanction.

While we have no Fed.R.Civ.P. 11, we have similar expectations of counsel. Cf. Des Vignes v. Department of Transportation, F.A.A., 791 F.2d 142 (Fed.Cir.1986); Kelly v. United States, 789 F.2d 94 (1st Cir.1986); Condado Home Care Program, Inc. v. Cooperativa de Seguros de Vida, 775 F.2d 457 (1st Cir.1985); Johnson v. Allyn & Bacon, Inc., 731 F.2d 64 (1st Cir.1984). We refrain, however, from assessing penalties for a frivolous appeal, but we believe it not unfair to permit counsel's continued clearly unsupportable conduct to stifle even sympathy for the consequences imposed on him by the district court.

A word with respect to our concurring brother. Assuming that custody, the basic requirement, and essential for initial jurisdiction, existed when the proceeding was commenced, ⁵ the case did not become moot when custody ceased, but remained alive because of the judgment's effect upon the purely collateral matter of a civil nature, namely deportation proceedings. Carafas v. LaVallee...