UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Joseph CASTELLI, a/k/a Giuseppe Gagliano, Petitioner-Appellant

United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit1962-07-10No. No. 388, Docket 27325

306 F.2d 640

Summary · law.co

Holding. The appellate court affirmed the denial of Castelli's coram nobis application. The trial judge's credibility determinations and rejection of Castelli's uncorroborated testimony were within his authority, and no reversible error was shown.

In 1927, Castelli pleaded guilty to unlawful heroin sale in federal court and received a one-year sentence. Nearly three decades later, this conviction became grounds for his deportation. After he reentered the country illegally, facing a new deportation proceeding, Castelli sought to vacate the original conviction, claiming he was innocent and had neither received nor been offered legal counsel at the time of his guilty plea.

Castelli relied exclusively on his own testimony to support his claim, offering no corroborating evidence from the trial judge or other witnesses familiar with courtroom procedures in 1927. The government presented testimony from a longtime deputy clerk establishing that the regular practice in the district during that period was for courts to inquire whether unrepresented defendants had counsel or wished counsel to be assigned. The trial judge found Castelli's recollection too vague to be credible and chose to accept the government's evidence instead. On appeal, Castelli disputed the trial judge's credibility determinations, but such factual conclusions rest within the trial judge's discretion.

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

Key issues

Whether lack of counsel at guilty plea can be established through uncorroborated testimony decades after conviction
Credibility determinations in coram nobis proceedings and appellate deference to trial judge factfindings
Whether historical courtroom practice regarding counsel assignment supported or contradicted defendant's claim

Procedural posture

Castelli appealed from the district court's denial of his coram nobis petition to vacate a 1927 guilty plea conviction based on alleged lack of counsel.

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion · public domain

majority opinion

PER CURIAM.

In 1927 appellant was convicted, on a plea of guilty before Judge Knox in the Southern District of New York, of unlawful sale of heroin. He received a one year sentence. In 1955, the 1927 conviction became the basis for appellant’s deportation; he then reentered illegally. Now facing a new deportation proceeding, he made an application in the nature of coram nobis to vacate the 1927 conviction, United States v. Morgan, 346 U.S. 502, 74 S.Ct. 247, 98 L.Ed. 248 (1954), primarily on the ground that, although innocent, he neither had nor was offered the assistance of counsel. Walker v. Johnston, 312 U.S. 275, 61 S.Ct. 574, 85 L.Ed. 830 (1941). Judge Murphy denied the application after a hearing, and Cas-telli appeals.

For direct proof of his claim in regard to lack of counsel, Castelli relied wholly on his own testimony. He made no effort to obtain testimony from Judge Knox, based on notes the judge might have with respect to the receipt of Castelli’s guilty plea or on the judge’s recollection of the general practice in 1927 as to interrogating criminal defendants with respect to the assignment of counsel. Neither did Castelli seek to buttress his testimony by calling any other witnesses with personal knowledge of the latter subject. The Government countered, among other things, with Castelli’s admission that he had not previously claimed innocence or lack of counsel, even at the time of his prior deportation proceeding, and with testimony of Jonas A. Johnson, a deputy clerk in the Southern District since 1922, that the regular practice in 1927, save in prohibition cases, was for the court to inquire whether an accused appearing without an attorney had counsel or desired the court to assign counsel. Appellant rejoined with an affidavit of a former assistant United States attorney, submitted in a 1953 proceeding, that this was not the practice, information which the former assistant thought came from Johnson, see United States v. DiMartini, 118 F.Supp. 601, 602 (S.D.N.Y.1953), but see id., 120 F.Supp. 907, 908 (S.D.N.Y.1954); Johnson denied making the statement so attributed to him.

Judge Murphy based his denial of the application on his disbelief of Castelli. The latter now alleges various errors in the judge’s opinion, which was prepared without benefit of the trial minutes that were ordered for the appeal; with one unimportant exception, the claimed errors are really disagreements with Judge Murphy’s conclusions. Castelli’s testimony makes it apparent that, to say the least, his recollection of what happened on June 29, 1927 was vague in the extreme, as almost anyone’s would be. If the judge chose to disbelieve what little Castelli did recall and to accept Johnson’s testimony, that was his prerogative, Broadcast Music, Inc. v. Havana Madrid Restaurant Corp., 175 F.2d 77, 80 (2 Cir. 1949); Mayer v. Zim Israel Navigation Co., Ltd., 289 F.2d 562 (2 Cir. 1960), cert. denied, 368 U.S. 889, 82 S.Ct. 140, 7 L.Ed.2d 88 (1961); Guzman v. Pichirilo, 82 S.Ct. 1095 (1962). Whether there are grounds for the exercise of discretionary authority to suspend Castelli’s deportation because of this old conviction, 8 U.S.C.A. § 1254, is not for us to say.

Affirmed.

. A claim was also made that his knowledge of English was so limited that he did not understand the proceedings. This was not pressed at the argument before us; in any event the district judge was warranted in rejecting it, as he did.