James E. Hawk v. United States
119 U.S. App. D.C. 267 · 1964 U.S. App. LEXIS 3623 · 340 F.2d 792
December 10, 1964 · Docket 18598_1
Opinion
This appellant and four other young men were charged in a 10-count indictment with carnal knowledge of a fourteen-year-old girl.
This appellant had entered his guilty plea in the presence of his counsel, whom he described in his motion as “very competent.” The judge before receiving that plea had meticulously questioned the appellant and his co-defendants and required the personal and individual answers of each accused to every question.
Appellant argues that Rule 32(d), Fed.R.Crim.P. contemplates that the District Judge will apply a standard of what is “fair and just” in ruling upon a presentence motion to withdraw a guilty plea. Our acceptance of that statement in the abstract would not compel a conclusion that the judge had here abused his discretion if we were to assay his ruling only in terms of the material which had been set out in the Government’s Opposition.
But counsel appointed by this court has developed a phase which disturbs us and of which we will now treat. The Government’s Opposition to the appellant’s motions was filed on April 6, 1964, but was not served upon trial counsel. Rule 49(b), Fed.R.Crim.P. provides for service upon the attorney for an adverse party of papers required to be served pursuant to Rule 49(a). The certificate of service shows that the Government’s Opposition was mailed to the appellant “c/o D. C. Jail” on April 6, 1964. The judge without a hearing denied appellant’s motions on April 7, 1964. There is nothing to show that the appellant’s trial attorney had notice of what the Government was contending in its Opposition, that the Government had failed to controvert the serious allegations of the appellant’s pro se motions, or even that the Opposition so mailed had actually been delivered to the appellant himself before the judge had acted.
The Government’s Opposition stated' that “the real basis of their requested withdrawal [of the guilty plea] is due to the dismissal of the charges entered' in the Balenger case.” That case had' been dismissed, the Opposition set out, “due to illness on the part of the complaining witness,”
Appellant’s trial counsel had not participated in the Balenger trial. There is no basis upon which to hold that he had waived his client’s right to press for a resolution of an issue of which he had no notice. There is no reason to assume that on April 7, 1964 when the motions, “were denied,
The young girl testified that she had been threatened but “not by him” [Balenger] ; that she had been hit, but by “somebody else.” When the Balenger trial was resumed, the prosecutrix did not appear in court nor did the girls who had been with her at the party.
Then on February 27, 1964, the prose•cutor stated:
“Since Your Honor recessed the case last night, I have talked to several of the witnesses in the ease who have indicated that Miss Graves, the complaining witness, made certain statements to them indicating that she was not sure as to whether this defendant, Joe Balenger, actually had intercourse with her or not. She has not shown up this morning, none of the Lyda girls have shown up this morning. I contacted the mother of the complaining witness, Bonnie Graves. She indicates she is unavailable, that she will not appear, and that the Lyda girls also will not appear in court.
“So on that basis the Government will move to dismiss the ease against the defendant Balenger.”9
The Government’s Opposition had concluded that for the reasons advanced “and for such other reasons as may be urged at the time of hearing” the appellant’s motions to withdraw his plea of guilty should be denied. Clearly the Government had contemplated that a hearing be held. It may be that at such a hearing the Government intended to put in issue the appellant’s contentions, that the testimony of the complaining witness before the Grand Jury was perjurious and that she had testified merely “to what she had been told to say” by the prosecutor. We can not know what position trial counsel might have taken had he been served with the copy of the Government’s Opposition to the appellant’s motions, so summarily denied as we have indicated. We are satisfied that plain error has appeared, for a hearing should have been conducted in view of such allegations.
Granting that such a request may often be viewed liberally, it does not here follow that the appellant is entitled to be permitted to withdraw his plea of guilty and to go to trial. The plea of guilty as originally entered under circumstances as they then appeared was a solemn act. Such a plea is itself a conviction, and when one so pleads, “he may be held bound.”
Unless after the hearing which we direct the District Judge shall conclude that the appellant has established grounds for the withdrawal of his plea, the conviction will stand.
Remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
. D.C.Code § 22-2801 (1961).
. The prosecutor stated that at the time of sentence he would move to dismiss the remaining counts. That step was taken April 10, 1964 when appellant was sentenced to serve two to six years. At sentence, as when appellant pleaded guilty, he was represented by counsel appointed by the District Court.
. Additionally, this appellant essentially claimed that the testimony of the prosecutrix before the Grand Jury was perjurious and that she testified “to what she had been told to say by one United States Attorney”; that the appellant had pleaded guilty “in fear of the time he could get if found guilty by a jury”; that his plea had been “entered in bad faith”; and that he was not guilty and “feels would he be allowed to proceed to trial he would be acquitted of said charge” under Rule 29(a).
. The questions in substance followed those outlined in Everett v. United States, 119 U.S.App.D.C. -, 336 F.2d 979 (1964).
. Compare tbe rulings discernible from the cases collected in Judge Burger’s, exhaustive opinion in Everett v. United States, supra note 4; and see High v. United States, 110 U.S.App.D.C. 25, 288, F.2d 427, cert. denied, 366 U.S. 923, 81. S.Ct. 1350, 6 L.Ed.2d 383 (1961).
. We do not assume that the Government intentionally misrepresented the fact;: rather we may deduce that the prosecutor thus phrased his recollection of the-earlier occurrence.
. The Government on brief points out that the record “does not indicate one way or the other whether the court even considered appellee’s newly filed opposition in ruling on appellant’s two motions.”
. That transcript was not filed in the District Court until July 24, 1964.
. The prosecutor: “I understand the defendant Balenger is agreeable, if necessary, to testify against any other defendants in the ease if it becomes necessary.”
. Certainly the Government is not entitled to prevail if its case rests upon perjured testimony. Cf. Mesarosh v. United States, 352 U.S. 1, 9, 77 S.Ct. 1, 1 L.Ed.2d 1 (1956).
. Cf. Kercheval v. United States, 274 U.S. 220, 224, 47. S.Ct. 582, 71 L.Ed. 1009 (1927).
. IMcl. And the burden of establishing grounds for withdrawal of the plea shall rest upon the accused. Everett v. United States, supra, note 4.