Woodruff v. Cook
| Citation | 310 F. Supp. 280 |
| Decision Date | 16 March 1970 |
| Docket Number | No. GC 6943-S.,GC 6943-S. |
| Parties | E. L. WOODRUFF, Plaintiff, v. Thomas D. COOK, Superintendent, Mississippi State Penitentiary, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Mississippi |
E. L. Woodruff, pro se.
A. F. Summer, Atty. Gen., State of Miss., Guy N. Rogers, Asst. Atty. Gen., State of Miss., Jackson, Miss., for defendant.
This habeas corpus proceeding is before the Court for disposition, after a full evidentiary hearing on the merits of the case.
The evidence before the Court shows that petitioner, E. L. Woodruff, was arrested in Sunflower County, Mississippi, on March 9, 1962 on several charges of burglary. At the time of his arrest Woodruff was out of the Mississippi State Penitentiary on an indefinite suspension of a prison sentence previously given him by the Circuit Court of Grenada County.
After his arrest Woodruff was carried to the Leflore County jail where he was held for approximately ten (10) days, before being carried back to the Mississippi State Penitentiary at Parchman, Mississippi, on account of the revocation of his suspension of sentence.
Woodruff was incarcerated in the penitentiary at Parchman until he was carried to the Tallahatchie County Circuit Court at Sumner, Mississippi, to answer five indictments for burglary and grand larceny. Woodruff was jointly indicted with one Earl Scott in each of the five indictments.
The minutes of the Tallahatchie County Circuit Court reflect that on September 5, 1962, Woodruff and Scott plead guilty to the charges. They were sentenced to serve a term of seven (7) years in the State Penitentiary on each indictment, the sentences to run concurrently.
Woodruff filed a pro se petition for Writ of Error Coram Nobis with the Tallahatchie County Circuit Court on March 19, 1965, seeking relief from the sentences aforesaid because he was not afforded the services of an attorney, as required by Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335, 83 S.Ct. 792, 9 L.Ed.2d 799, 93 A.L.R.2d 733, decided by the Supreme Court of the United States on March 18, 1963, several months after Woodruff entered his plea of guilty to the five indictments.
Woodruff also contended that the failure of the arresting officers to promptly carry him before a judicial officer or committing magistrate pursuant to Section 2473, Mississippi Code 1942, Annotated, Recompiled, without unnecessary delay, vitiated the sentences. The Court permitted him to proceed in forma pauperis and appointed able counsel to represent him.
An evidentiary hearing was held by the Court on September 17, 1965. At the conclusion of the hearing, the Court dismissed the petition and denied Woodruff any relief.
The Court appointed attorneys prosecuted on appeal to the Mississippi Supreme Court where the judgment of the lower court was affirmed June 13, 1966. Woodruff v. State, Miss., 187 So.2d 883.
Having exhausted his state remedies, Woodruff presented his petition for a writ of habeas corpus to this Court. The petition sets forth the same grounds for relief as were considered in the State Court proceedings.
In response to the petition, the defendant filed with his answer a complete transcript of state proceedings.
After a careful consideration of the record in the state court, the Court reached the conclusion that the material facts relating to the issue of whether Woodruff had the benefit of counsel when he entered pleas of guilty to the several indictments had not been adequately developed at the state court hearing. In such a situation it became the duty of the Court to order an evidentiary hearing. Townsend v. Sain, 1963, 372 U.S. 293, 313, 83 S.Ct. 745, 757, 9 L.Ed.2d 770, 786.
At the state hearing, the evidence showed that Woodruff was arrested on March 9, 1962 in Sunflower County and immediately carried to the Leflore County jail. Woodruff testified that he asked the Chief Deputy, whose name he thought was "Smith" for an attorney. The record does not show that this request was honored. Woodruff was confined in the jail until March 15, 1962, when he was carried to the Mississippi State Penitentiary at Parchman, Mississippi. Prior to his arrest in Sunflower County, Woodruff had been an inmate of the penitentiary serving a sentence from the Circuit Court of Grenada County, Mississippi. Woodruff had been granted an indefinite suspension of sentence and had been free for about 143 days when he was arrested on the charges involved in the case sub judice. Upon his arrest the suspension previously granted him was revoked, and he was returned to prison.
Woodruff remained at the prison until he was brought to Tallahatchie County to answer the charges set forth in the five indictments aforesaid. While in prison Woodruff sent for the District Attorney and Sheriff. When they came to see him, Woodruff told them that he was guilty of the charges and wanted to enter pleas of guilty, if he could receive sentences which would run concurrently.
Woodruff admitted in his testimony at the state hearing that he had been incarcerated in at least four prisons for a period of more than 35 years during his life, and had spent a great deal of his time studying and reading law. He was thoroughly familiar with the Gideon decision which had been handed down by the Supreme Court of the United States, after he had been sentenced by the Court, and before he presented his petition for a Writ of Error Coram Nobis. It was brought out that he personally prepared the suit papers, utilizing forms obtained from others, and such law books as were available.
Woodruff did not at any time, except on the one occasion above mentioned, request the assistance of an attorney, and such was not offered to him by the prosecuting attorney, the Court, or anyone else. Woodruff testified that he was without means with which to employ an attorney. Woodruff further stated that he knew that it was not customary in Mississippi to appoint counsel; that he had been denied an appointed attorney in every other court and that he did not request one on this occasion.1
Honorable Shed Hill Roberson and Honorable Semmes Luckett, two able attorneys of Clarksdale, Mississippi, notified the prosecuting attorney on the first day of the term that they interested in representing Scott, Woodruff's coindictee. At a later day in the term Woodruff and Scott were brought to the courthouse in Sumner and carried to a conference room adjacent to the courtroom. The record shows that Mr. Roberson returned to the court on that time, and was present with the two defendants. Before the arrival of Mr. Roberson, Scott became apprehensive and Woodruff jokingly said "what in the world do you want a lawyer for".
When Mr. Roberson arrived at the courthouse he went to the conference room where Woodruff, Scott, the sheriff, district attorney and county attorney were present. Upon his arrival, the district attorney read each indictment to Woodruff and Scott, after which in response to the district attorney's inquiry, they said they were guilty of the charges.
The state record reflects that Mr. Roberson was employed to represent Scott alone, and this fact was known to the district attorney. The district attorney testified, however, that the agreement to dispose of the cases constituted a package deal and that Woodruff was present when Mr. Roberson advised Scott, and understood that he was getting the same deal as Scott.
The trial court dictated into the record at the conclusion of the evidence that the record as a whole demonstrated that Mr. Roberson was not directly and personally representing Woodruff on the occasion, but that Woodruff was present during the conference between the district attorney, Mr. Roberson, and Scott, when the matters were discussed.
In his opinion the trial court held that the failure to immediately bring Woodruff before a magistrate was not prejudicial to him, since he was incarcerated in the penitentiary on other charges. As to the feature of the case pertaining to lack of counsel, the Court held that the record justified the finding that Woodruff was either represented by counsel or that he effectively waived any right to representation.
The Supreme Court of Mississippi, after a review of the record, affirmed the denial of the writ by the trial court and based the affirmance "on the fact that petitioner had the benefit of counsel and received the same sentence as Scott, and the fact that he is exceptionally well informed on criminal procedure and is a well educated and articulate person". Woodruff v. State, supra, 187 So.2d at pages 884 and 885.2
The record in the state proceedings shows that Woodruff was in Mr. Roberson's presence only one time. The record does not reflect the nature or extent of the conference between Mr. Roberson and Scott in which Woodruff participated. It appears from the record that the conference, if any, was held in the conference room adjacent to the courtroom in the presence of the sheriff and district and county attorneys. Mr. Roberson did not testify. Because of the incomplete record on this vital point, this Court ordered an evidentiary hearing on Woodruff's habeas corpus petition.
At the evidentiary hearing Woodruff elaborated on the facts in the case and introduced a letter written to him from Mr. Roberson, which was received in evidence by the Court without objection by defendant.
Mr. Roberson stated in his letter that he did not represent Woodruff or his co-indictee Scott; that his only purpose was to secure the best deal he could for Mrs. Scott; and that both Woodruff and Scott were advised as to his position. Mr. Roberson recalled that Woodruff, while in the State Penitentiary at Parchman, wrote him a letter about representing him, but that he (Roberson) was advised by the superintendent of the institution that he could not see Woodruff, unless he was Woodruff's attorney. Since Mr. Roberson and Woodruff had not had the opportunity to confer...
To continue reading
Request your trial