Thomas Charles WARREN, Petitioner-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Respondent-Appellee

United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit1974-01-28No. No. 73-3111

488 F.2d 862

Summary · law.co

Holding. The court affirmed the denial of Warren's § 2255 motion, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in proceeding without a competency hearing, that the factual finding against a prosecutorial promise was not clearly erroneous, and that the plea colloquy complied with Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11.

Warren pleaded guilty to interstate transportation of a stolen vehicle under the Dyer Act and received a five-year sentence. Approximately five months later, he filed a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 seeking to vacate his plea, raising ten alleged errors that centered on three main contentions: the trial court's failure to conduct a competency hearing despite knowing of his heroin addiction, an alleged prosecutorial promise of leniency that was never fulfilled, and claimed violations of Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11 during the plea acceptance.

The appellate court rejected all three arguments. Narcotic addiction alone does not render a defendant incompetent to enter a guilty plea, and the trial judge was not required to order a competency hearing after observing Warren's demeanor and responses during questioning, particularly where Warren stated he had abstained from hard drugs for 47 days before sentencing. The district court's factual finding that no prosecutorial deal had been made, based on testimony from the defendant, the Assistant U.S. Attorney, and the investigating agent, was not clearly erroneous. Finally, the court record demonstrated that the trial judge had properly inquired into the voluntariness of the plea and established its factual basis, fully complying with Rule 11 requirements.

Summary generated by law.co from the public-domain opinion. The opinion text itself is public domain.

Key issues

Whether a trial court must order a competency hearing when a defendant's narcotics addiction is known
Whether alleged prosecutorial promises of leniency constitute grounds to vacate a guilty plea
Whether the trial court complied with Rule 11 requirements in accepting the guilty plea

Procedural posture

Warren appealed from the district court's denial of his § 2255 motion to vacate his guilty plea and sentence following an evidentiary hearing before the sentencing judge.

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion · public domain

majority opinion

PER CURIAM:

On September 29, 1972, petitioner Warren pleaded guilty to a charge of interstate transportation of a stolen motor vehicle, a violation of the Dyer Act (18 U.S.C. § 2312), and received the maximum sentence of five years. Some five months later petitioner initiated the present action, filed pursuant to 28 U.S. C. § 2255, seeking to have his plea set aside. An evidentiary hearing was held before the sentencing judge and relief was denied. We affirm.

Petitioner’s brief alleges ten points of error in the original sentencing procedure, but this shotgun attack contains essentially three substantive arguments: (1) that the sentencing court should not have accepted petitioner’s waiver of counsel and plea of guilty without conducting a competency hearing as authorized by 18 U.S.C.A. § 4244; (2) that petitioner was induced to enter his plea by a prosecutor’s unfulfilled promise of lenient treatment; and (3) that the sentencing court did not follow the dictates of Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure in accepting the guilty plea.

The first allegation of error is grounded in the fact that the court had been informed before sentencing that petitioner was a heroin addict. Addiction to narcotics, however, does not automatically render a defendant incompetent either to stand trial or to enter a plea. See Grennett v. United States, 1968, 131 U.S.App.D.C. 202, 403 F.2d 928. Nor is a trial court required under all circumstances to order a competency hearing on its own motion whenever the defendant’s addiction becomes known. United States v. Williams, 5 Cir. 1972, 468 F.2d 819. The district judge interrogated petitioner at some length in regard to his physical condition at the time of the arraignment and sentencing. He observed Warren’s demeanor and the quality of his responses. Petitioner stated that he had taken no hard narcotic drugs during the forty-seven days prior to sentencing — a contention that he did not deny at the § 2255 hearing. On the basis of this record we cannot say that the evidence of mental incompetence was so strong as to require a hearing. The district court, therefore, did not abuse its discretion in failing to order a psychiatric examination of the accused. See United States v. Williams, supra; Rice v. United States, 5 Cir. 1969, 420 F.2d 863.

Petitioner’s second argument is conclusively answered in the transcript of the § 2255 hearing. The district court had the benefit of testimony from petitioner, the Assistant United States Attorney who was alleged to have made the agreement, and the investigating agent from the F.B.I. The court found that the weight of credible evidence did not support petitioner’s allegation of a deal. That conclusion is not clearly erroneous. Rule 52(a) F.R.C.P.

The final contention is also governed by the transcript. We have read the exchange between court and defendant at the time of sentencing, which was placed in the record at the § 2255 hearing. We find no deviation from the standards required by Rule 11. Contrary to petitioner’s assertions, our examination discloses that the district judge both inquired into the voluntariness of the plea and developed its factual basis in the record. See Santobello v. New York, 1971, 404 U.S. 257, 261, 92 S.Ct. 495, 30 L.Ed.2d 427. Petitioner has presented no persuasive reason for disturbing the finality of that Rule 11 proceeding.

Affirmed.