United States v. Matthews, No. 72-2036.

CourtUnited States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (4th Circuit)
Writing for the CourtCRAVEN, BUTZNER and RUSSELL, Circuit
Citation472 F.2d 1173
PartiesUNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Charles Allen MATTHEWS, Appellant.
Docket NumberNo. 72-2036.
Decision Date06 February 1973

472 F.2d 1173 (1973)

UNITED STATES of America, Appellee,
v.
Charles Allen MATTHEWS, Appellant.

No. 72-2036.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Argued January 8, 1973.

Decided February 6, 1973.


Stewart C. Economou, Alexandria, Va. Court-appointed counsel (Evans &

472 F.2d 1174
Economou, Alexandria, Va., on brief), for appellant

Frank W. Dunham, Jr., Asst. U. S. Atty. (Brian P. Gettings, U. S. Atty., on brief), for appellee.

Before CRAVEN, BUTZNER and RUSSELL, Circuit Judges.

CRAVEN, Circuit Judge:

Charles Allen Matthews appeals from judgment and sentence committing him to imprisonment of eight years on his plea of guilty to the lesser offense of bank larceny after having been indicted for armed bank robbery and larceny of an automobile. The plea of guilty and the judgment of conviction and sentence were the result of entirely proper and fully disclosed plea bargaining in the district court. Even so, Matthews attempted to preserve on appeal his objection to the court's refusal to permit him to personally select a psychiatrist appointed pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3006A (e).1

We think the district court correctly refused to permit the entry of a conditional guilty plea, i. e., subject to the right to present on appeal the alleged error. We hold that the guilty plea was entered intelligently, voluntarily, and with an understanding of the direct consequences of the plea, and that such a plea swallows up errors such as that complained of here. See Brady v. United States, 397 U.S. 742, 90 S.Ct. 1463, 25 L.Ed.2d 747 (1970).

Matthews asked the district court to appoint Dr. Whyte to examine him for purposes of his defense. The United States Attorney offered no objection. Even so, without explanation, the district judge declined to appoint Dr. Whyte, and called upon the United States Attorney to offer employment to either of two other psychiatrists whose names were suggested by the district judge. When it appeared that neither could or would accept employment, the Assistant United States Attorney telephoned Dr. Fram, who agreed to serve. It is not suggested that Dr. Fram was incompetent or even uncooperative with defense counsel. If it were otherwise, we would have a very different case.

We strongly disapprove of the procedure. Under no circumstances should the office of United States Attorney, inherently adversary to a criminal defendant, be allowed to serve as an arm of the court in the selective process. Were this an appeal from...

To continue reading

Request your trial
20 practice notes
  • People v. Thomas
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court Appellate Division
    • 19 mai 1980
    ...95 S.Ct. 619, 42 L.Ed.2d 640, the Seventh Circuit followed the analysis in United States v. Cox (supra ). In United States v. Matthews, 472 F.2d 1173 the Fourth Circuit upheld a District Judge's refusal to allow a conditional guilty In the Second Circuit, however, an appeal may be taken on ......
  • State v. Sery, No. 860333-CA
    • United States
    • Utah Court of Appeals
    • 27 juillet 1988
    ...Rule 11 makes no mention of any type of conditional plea. State v. Kay, 717 P.2d 1294 (Utah 1986). 5 Contra United States v. Matthews, 472 F.2d 1173 (4th Cir.1973); United States v. Swann, 574 F.2d 1316 (5th Cir.1978) (conditional pleas inappropriate in absence of authorizing rule or statut......
  • People v. Reid, Docket Nos. 67451
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Michigan
    • 15 janvier 1985
    ...States v. Clark, 459 F.2d 977 (C.A.8, 1972). But see United States v. Benson, 579 F.2d 508 (C.A.9, 1978); United States v. Matthews, 472 F.2d 1173 (C.A.4, 1973); United States v. Cox, 464 F.2d 937 (C.A.6, 12 Lefkowitz v. Newsome, 420 U.S. 283, 292-93, 95 S.Ct. 886, 891, 43 L.Ed.2d 196 (1975......
  • Wilkins v. State of Maryland, Civ. No. B-74-697.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 4th Circuit. United States District Court (Maryland)
    • 1 octobre 1975
    ...v. Davis, 481 F.2d 425, 427-28 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 414 U.S. 977, 94 S.Ct. 296, 38 L.Ed.2d 220 (1973); United States v. Matthews, 472 F.2d 1173 (4th Cir. 1973). See generally 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(e). Furthermore, in United States v. Davis, supra at 428, the Fourth Circuit stated that the ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
20 cases
  • People v. Thomas
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court Appellate Division
    • 19 mai 1980
    ...95 S.Ct. 619, 42 L.Ed.2d 640, the Seventh Circuit followed the analysis in United States v. Cox (supra ). In United States v. Matthews, 472 F.2d 1173 the Fourth Circuit upheld a District Judge's refusal to allow a conditional guilty In the Second Circuit, however, an appeal may be taken on ......
  • State v. Sery, No. 860333-CA
    • United States
    • Utah Court of Appeals
    • 27 juillet 1988
    ...Rule 11 makes no mention of any type of conditional plea. State v. Kay, 717 P.2d 1294 (Utah 1986). 5 Contra United States v. Matthews, 472 F.2d 1173 (4th Cir.1973); United States v. Swann, 574 F.2d 1316 (5th Cir.1978) (conditional pleas inappropriate in absence of authorizing rule or statut......
  • People v. Reid, Docket Nos. 67451
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Michigan
    • 15 janvier 1985
    ...States v. Clark, 459 F.2d 977 (C.A.8, 1972). But see United States v. Benson, 579 F.2d 508 (C.A.9, 1978); United States v. Matthews, 472 F.2d 1173 (C.A.4, 1973); United States v. Cox, 464 F.2d 937 (C.A.6, 12 Lefkowitz v. Newsome, 420 U.S. 283, 292-93, 95 S.Ct. 886, 891, 43 L.Ed.2d 196 (1975......
  • Wilkins v. State of Maryland, Civ. No. B-74-697.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 4th Circuit. United States District Court (Maryland)
    • 1 octobre 1975
    ...v. Davis, 481 F.2d 425, 427-28 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 414 U.S. 977, 94 S.Ct. 296, 38 L.Ed.2d 220 (1973); United States v. Matthews, 472 F.2d 1173 (4th Cir. 1973). See generally 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(e). Furthermore, in United States v. Davis, supra at 428, the Fourth Circuit stated that the ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT