From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Williams v. Reincke

Supreme Court of Connecticut
Nov 6, 1968
249 A.2d 252 (Conn. 1968)

Opinion

The defect in an arrest warrant resulting from its being unsworn is waived by consent to the court's jurisdiction. A plea of guilty, when entered knowingly, voluntarily and on the advice of counsel, constitutes a waiver of all nonjurisdictional defenses. The plaintiff, imprisoned upon his conviction of the statutory crime of robbery with violence (53-14), claimed, in a writ of habeas corpus, that his confinement wis unlawful for the reasons that (1) he had been arrested pursuant to a warrant unsupported by oath or affirmation and (2) his hotel room had been illegally searched and property taken therefrom and from his person had been illegally seized. Following a hearing, the trial court concluded that the plaintiff, while represented by counsel, had consented to the court's jurisdiction and that the property taken from his person had been legally seized incident to a lawful arrest. It further concluded that a confession, which he made subsequent to his original arrest, but prior to his plea, and without prior effective warning as to his constitutional rights, was voluntary, and that his plea of guilty, which he made after he was warned of his constitutional rights and in the presence of counsel, was induced, not by the fact that property had been illegally taken from his hotel room, but by the fact that the police had other incriminating evidence. Held: 1. The plaintiff, having voluntarily submitted himself to the court's jurisdiction, was not entitled to a release on the ground that the warrant for his arrest was unsworn. 2. The court correctly concluded that the plaintiffs confession was voluntary and not unconstitutionally elicited because the warnings now required in such situations were not then required. 3. The court's conclusion that the plaintiff's guilty plea was voluntary and not prompted by a violation of his fundamental constitutional rights was amply supported by the record.

Argued October 9, 1968

Decided November 6, 1968

Habeas corpus alleging unlawful imprisonment, brought to the Superior Court in Hartford County and tried to the court, Palmer, J.; judgment dismissing the writ, from which the plaintiff appealed. No error.

David M. Borden, special public defender, for the appellant (plaintiff).

Francis M. McDonald, state's attorney, for the appellee (defendant).


The finding of facts, which is not subject to correction, reveals the following: On September 17, 1964, at 2:30 p.m., the plaintiff, armed with a revolver, robbed the Wolcott branch of the Waterbury Savings Bank. As he was leaving the bank with the stolen money in his left hand and the revolver in his right hand, an automatic camera in the bank photographed him. A seventeen-year-old girl, who accompanied the plaintiff to the bank, informed the police that the plaintiff had committed the robbery. With knowledge that the plaintiff had committed a felony and with his photograph, a police officer approached the plaintiff about 1 a.m. on September 19, 1964, in the lobby of a New Britain hotel, where the plaintiff had been residing. The officer drew his gun and took from the plaintiff a gun which he was carrying in his belt and a sum of money which the plaintiff stated he had taken from the bank. The plaintiff was arrested in the lobby without a warrant. Prior to the arrest, the police had illegally searched the plaintiff's room at the hotel without a warrant and seized $3436, which would have been used as evidence against the plaintiff in the event of a trial.

While in police custody, the plaintiff was rearrested pursuant to a Circuit Court warrant, which was unsupported by oath or affirmation. Pursuant to this warrant, the plaintiff was presented before the Circuit Court on a charge of robbery with violence. General Statutes 53-14. He waived a hearing on probable cause and was bound over to the October, 1964, term of the Superior Court. Before waiving a probable cause hearing, the plaintiff was advised of his constitutional rights by the presiding judge of the Circuit Court and was at all times represented by a public defender.

The plaintiff requested that he be presented before the Superior Court forthwith instead of at the October term. In compliance with his request, a warrant unsupported by oath or affirmation was issued by the Superior Court, and the plaintiff was presented in that court on September 22, 1964. In response to questions addressed to him by the presiding judge of the Superior Court, the plaintiff stated that his constitutional rights had been explained to him, that he knew that he did not have to plead if he did not wish to do so, and that he had discussed the matter with his attorney, who was then and there present with him. Thereupon, the plaintiff pleaded guilty to the information charging him with the crime of robbery with violence in violation of General Statutes 53-14.

Subsequent to his original arrest, but prior to his plea, the plaintiff was interrogated by the police, and he gave a written, signed statement. The interrogation was conducted without prior effective warning to the plaintiff of his right to counsel and his right to remain silent.

The court ordered the case continued until October 6, 1964, for a presentence investigation and report. On October 6, the court sentenced the plaintiff to imprisonment. On the same day, the plaintiff, with the knowledge and approval of his attorney and upon his advice, acknowledged in writing that the money which had been taken from his hotel room on September 19, 1964, was money stolen by him from the bank, and he requested that the money be returned to the bank.

The plaintiff, who is presently confined in prison, did not challenge his arrest until he filed his application for a writ of habeas corpus on February 1, 1966. In his application, the plaintiff requested his immediate release on the grounds that (1) his arrest was illegal because it was made pursuant to a warrant unsupported by oath or affirmation in violation of the fourth and the fourteenth amendments to the United States constitution and (2) the police illegally searched his hotel room and illegally seized property from his person and from his hotel room. Following a hearing, the court concluded that the plaintiff consented to the court's jurisdiction, that the property taken from his person was legally seized incident to a lawful arrest and that the confession was not illegally obtained. The court further concluded that, although property was illegally seized from the plaintiff's hotel room, that did not induce him to make an involuntary plea of guilty. The petition was denied, the court certified the case for review pursuant to General Statutes 52-470, and the plaintiff has taken the present appeal.

The court did not err in concluding that the plaintiff consented to the court's jurisdiction and voluntarily submitted himself thereto. Consent to the jurisdiction amounts to a waiver of the defective bench warrants, which were unsupported by findings of probable cause based on oath or affirmation. State v. Orsini, 155 Conn. 367, 379, 232 A.2d 907. An illegal arrest by itself is not sufficient to warrant habeas corpus relief. United States ex rel. Orsini v. Reincke, 286 F. Sup. 974, 978 (D. Conn.), aff'd, 397 F.2d 977 (2d Cir.); Reed v. Reincke, 155 Conn. 591, 594, 236 A.2d 909. The trial court was correct in refusing to afford retroactive effect to State v. Licari, 153 Conn. 127, 214 A.2d 900. Reed v. Reincke, supra, 601. The plaintiff is therefore not entitled to release on the basis of his claim that the arrest warrant was unsupported by oath or affirmation.

The plaintiff claims that the money taken from his room and from his person was seized illegally, that his written confession was obtained illegally in that he was not advised of his right to counsel and his right to remain silent, and that these articles would be used against him in the event of a trial. These circumstances, the plaintiff contends, caused him to make an involuntary plea of guilty. The burden of alleging and proving this claim was on the plaintiff. Vena v. Warden, 154 Conn. 363, 367, 225 A.2d 802.

A plea of guilty, when entered knowingly, voluntarily and on the advice of counsel, constitutes a waiver of all nonjurisdictional defenses. United States ex rel. Rogers v. Warden, 381 F.2d 209, 212 (2d Cir.); United States ex rel. Glenn v. McMann, 349 F.2d 1018, 1019 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 383 U.S. 915, 86 S.Ct. 906, 15 L.Ed.2d 669; United States ex rel. Boucher v. Reincke, 341 F.2d 977, 980 (2d Cir.). A guilty plea is not, however, a waiver of constitutional claims if it was involuntarily given as a result of a violation of an accused's fundamental constitutional rights. Pennsylvania ex rel. Herman v. Claudy, 350 U.S. 116, 118, 76 S.Ct. 223, 100 L.Ed. 126; Doran v. Wilson, 369 F.2d 505, 507 (9th Cir.). A plea of guilty cannot stand if it was rendered involuntary by a coerced confession; Gladden v. Holland, 366 F.2d 580, 583 (9th Cir.); Smith v. Wainwright, 373 F.2d 506, 507, 508 (5th Cir.); by a denial of the right to counsel; Pennsylvania ex rel. Herman v. Claudy, supra; Wright v. Dickson, 336 F.2d 878, 882 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 386 U.S. 1012, 87 S.Ct. 1360, 18 L.Ed.2d 444; or by a fear that illegally seized evidence would be introduced at the trial. United States ex rel. Burke v. Mancusi, 276 F. Sup. 148, 153 (E.D.N.Y.).

The mere occurrence of a constitutional violation is not, however, sufficient to render a plea of guilty involuntary and thus susceptible to nullification in habeas corpus proceedings. Waley v. Johnston, 139 F.2d 117, 121 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 321 U.S. 779, 64 S.Ct. 617, 88 L.Ed. 1090. So long as the guilty plea was voluntarily made, it will withstand a collateral attack despite the fact that some of the accused's constitutional rights were infringed. Knowles v. Gladden, 378 F.2d 761, 766 (9th Cir.); Busby v. Holman, 356 F.2d 75, 77 (5th Cir.). All of the circumstances surrounding the entry of the guilty plea in court should be considered in determining the voluntariness of the plea. Earley v. United States, 263 F. Sup. 522, 527 (C.D. Cal.). The presence of counsel at the time when the plea of guilty was entered militates strongly against a conclusion that the plea was involuntary. Reed v. Henderson, 385 F.2d 995, 997 (6th Cir.). The plea of guilty will ordinarily not be invalidated if, at the time of the plea, the prosecuting authorities had admissible evidence which was highly damaging to the accused. See United States ex rel. Siebold v. Reincke, 362 F.2d 592, 593 (2d Cir.).

The trial court in the instant case concluded that the search of the plaintiff in the hotel lobby without a warrant was valid. We agree. The arresting officer certainly had reasonable grounds to believe that the plaintiff had committed a felony, and the search was incident to a lawful arrest. The court was also correct in ruling that the confession was not unconstitutionally elicited because the warnings specified in Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694, were not required in October, 1964. Johnson v. New Jersey, 384 U.S. 719, 86 S.Ct. 1772, 16 L.Ed.2d 882.

The court also concluded that, although the warrantless search of the plaintiff's hotel room prior to his arrest was illegal, a fear that the uncovered evidence would be introduced at the trial did not induce the plaintiff to plead guilty. The court found that the plaintiff voluntarily pleaded guilty because his photograph was taken by an automatic camera while he was leaving the bank with the stolen money and a gun and because his female companion informed the police that he had robbed the bank. The plaintiff was advised of his rights, and he conferred with his court-appointed attorney prior to entering his plea of guilty. The court's conclusion that the plaintiff's plea of guilty was voluntary and not prompted by a violation of any of his fundamental constitutional rights is amply supported by the record and should not be disturbed.


Summaries of

Williams v. Reincke

Supreme Court of Connecticut
Nov 6, 1968
249 A.2d 252 (Conn. 1968)
Case details for

Williams v. Reincke

Case Details

Full title:FRANK WILLIAMS v. FREDERICK G. REINCKE, WARDEN, CONNECTICUT STATE PRISON

Court:Supreme Court of Connecticut

Date published: Nov 6, 1968

Citations

249 A.2d 252 (Conn. 1968)
249 A.2d 252

Citing Cases

Szarwak v. Warden

The burden of proving merit for his reasons for withdrawing a plea of guilty rests on the moving party.…

People v. Temple

ADDENDUMPeople v. Daniels (1966), 2 Mich. App. 395; People v. Carlisle (1969), 19 Mich. App. 650;…