Pennsylvania Ex Rel. Herman v. Claudy, 350 U.S. 116 (1956)

350 U.S.
116
76 S.Ct. 223
100 L.Ed. 126
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, et rel. Stephen J.

HERMAN, Petitioner,
v.
Dr. John W. CLAUDY, Warden.
No. 45.
Argued Nov. 14, 1955.
Decided Jan. 9, 1956.
Mr. Herbert Monte Levy, New York City, Mrs. Marjorie Hanson Matson,
Pittsburgh, Pa., for petitioner.
Mr. Wray G. Zelt, Jr., Washington, D.C., for respondent.
Mr. Justice BLACK delivered the opinion of the Court.
In 1945 petitioner Stephen Herman pleaded guilty in a Pennsylvania state court

to 8 charges of burglary, 12 of larceny, 8 of forgery, and 2 of false pretense.1 He
was sentenced to serve 17 1/2 to 35 years in the penitentiary, 2 1/2 to 5 years on
each of the charges, some running consecutively, some concurrently. Eight
years later, in 1953, he filed this petition for habeas corpus in the same
Pennsylvania court, asking that his conviction be held invalid as in violation of
the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. He alleged: (1) that his
pleas of guilty were the result of coercion and threats by state officers and (2)
that at no stage of the proceedings was he either advised of his right to or given
the benefit of counsel. The District Attorney filed an answer challenging the
materiality of some of petitioner's allegations denying others, and urging that
the writ be refused because of petitioner's tardiness in challenging the
judgment. He asked that the petition be summarily dismissed on the ground that
'it would be a waste of time and very expensive for Washington County to have
this defendant go into a hearing to prove charges that he could have raised at
the time he was sentenced by this Court.' The petition was summarily dismissed
without a hearing by the same trial judge who had sentenced petitioner.
On appeal, the Superior Court of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania affirmed

the dismissal. 176 Pa.Super. 387, 107 A.2d 595. The Supreme Court of
Pennsylvania denied leave to appeal without opinion. We granted certiorari,
349 U.S. 904, 75 S.Ct. 584, because summary dismissal in the face of the
petitioner's serious allegations appeared to be out of line with decisions of this
Court.
Our prior decisions have established that: (1) a conviction following trial or on
a plea of guilty based on a confession extorted by violence or by mental
coercion is invalid under the Federal Due Process Clause;2 (2) where a person
convicted in a state court has not intelligently and understandingly waived the
benefit of counsel and where the circumstances show that his rights could not
have been fairly protected without counsel, the Due Process Clause invalidates
his conviction;3 (3) where a denial of these constitutional protections is alleged
in an appropriate proceeding by factual allegations not patently frivolous or
false on a consideration of the whole record, the proceeding should not be
summarily dismissed merely because a state prosecuting officer files an answer
denying some or all of the allegations.4
In the light of our previous holdings we now consider the allegations of the
petition for habeas corpus and the prosecuting officer's answer. The petition
alleged:
Petitioner, who had been to school only 6 years, was 21 years old when
arrested. His only prior experience with criminal procedure was 2 years earlier,
when without the benefit of counsel he pleaded guilty to charges of burglary,
larceny, and forgery, and was sentenced to 6 to 12 months in jail. After his
arrest on the present charges he was held incommunicado for 3 days. During
this period a state trooper grabbed him by the neck and threatened to choke him
if he did not confess, and there were threats against the safety of his wife and
daughter. Petitioner finally confessed after 72 hours of intermittent questioning
and was taken to a justice of the peace. He waived indictment and agreed to
plead guilty to 3 charges. More than a month later he was taken before the
Court of Common Pleas and charged with some 30 offenses. The assistant
prosecuting attorney demanded that petitioner sign a plea of guilty to all the
charges. When petitioner asked what he was signing, the assistant prosecuting
attorney said 'Sign your name and forget it.' Petitioner was not informed of the
seriousness of the charges by the prosecutor or the judge; he did not know that
his plea of guilty could result in a maximum sentence of some 315 years; he did
not know nor was he informed that he could have counsel. Petitioner pleaded
guilty to all of the charges against him. He now says he was innocent of all but
one.
6
The District Attorney's answer alleged: It was immaterial that petitioner was
only 21 years old and of limited educational background. Since petitioner had
previous experience in criminal procedure from the former case in which he
pleaded guilty, he understood his rights and was barred from alleging that his
lack of criminal experience violated due process. It was not necessary that a
defendant should have the advice, support, and assistance of relatives or friends
even if it be assumed that there was anything in the record to show that such an
opportunity was denied to petitioner. Petitioner had no constitutional right to be
informed by the court or prosecuting attorney of his right to counsel or of the
severity of the sentences which might be imposed upon him. There was no
showing that petitioner had been injured by not having counsel. The District
Attorney did not deny that petitioner had been told in the courtroom to 'Sign
your name and forget it,' but denied only 'that the statements were made by the
Assistant District Attorney in order to obtain pleas to the charges involved.' The
District Attorney defended the State's right to confine petitioner for a period of
72 hours on the ground that this was not 'an unreasonable length of time to hold
a defendant.' The charge that the officers threatened the safety of petitioner's
wife and daughter was specifically denied as untrue, as was the charge that
petitioner was grabbed by the neck. The answer alleged that petitioner's
confession was wholly voluntary.
The foregoing narrative of the allegations in the petition and the answer reveals
a sharp dispute as to the facts material to a determination of the constitutional
questions involved. The allegations as to petitioner's treatment prior to
confession and his understanding of the nature and consequences of a guilty
plea present the very kind of dispute which should be decided only after a
hearing. It is true that the trial record shows that petitioner told the judge that
he was guilty and said 'I throw myself at the mercy of the court, Your Honor.'
But neither these nor any other statements made before the trial judge at that
time5 are in themselves sufficient to refute as frivolous or false the serious
charges made by the petitioner concerning matters not shown by the record.
See Palmer v. Ashe, 342 U.S. 134, 137, 72 S.Ct. 191, 193, 96 L.Ed. 154. It is
entirely possible that petitioner's prior confession caused him, in the absence of
counsel, to enter the guilty plea. Moreover, the number and complexity of the
charges against petitioner, as well as their seriousness create a strong conviction
that no layman could have understood the accusations and that petitioner
should, therefore, have been advised of his right to be represented by counsel.
We cannot agree with the Pennsylvania Superior Court that the mere fact that
petitioner had, without the benefit of counsel, pleaded guilty to an offense 2
years before showed that he had the capacity to defend himself against the 30
charges here. We held in Gibbs v. Burke, 337 U.S. 773, 69 S.Ct. 1247, 93 L.Ed.
1686, that in spite of Gibbs' conviction in 6 prior criminal cases the
circumstances showed he was entitled to the benefit of counsel. In Uveges v.
Pennsylvania, 335 U.S. 437, 9 S.Ct. 184, 93 L.Ed. 127, where the facts were
strikingly similar to those presented here, we held that representation by
counsel was required by the Due Process Clause. Nor was petitioner barred
from presenting his challenge to the conviction because 8 years had passed
before this action was commenced. Uveges did not challenge his conviction for
7 years. 335 U.S. 437, 438439, 69 S.Ct. 184. And in a later case we held that
a prisoner could challenge the validity of his conviction 18 years after he had
been convicted. Palmer v. Ashe, 342 U.S. 134, 72 S.Ct. 191, 96 L.Ed. 154. The
sound premise upon which these holdings rested is that men incarcerated in
flagrant violation of their constitutional rights have a remedy.
8
The chief argument made by the State here in support of the court's summary
dismissal of the petition is this: 'Counsel for petitioner argues that since facts
are alleged in the petition, a hearing must be held. Since our answer
contradicted the allegations in the petition, the lower court was not required to
grant a hearing. This contention was sustained by the Superior Court.' We
cannot accept this argument. Under the allegations here petitioner is entitled to
relief if he can prove his charges. He cannot be denied a hearing merely
because the allegations of his petition were contradicted by the prosecuting
officers.
The judgment is reversed and the cause is remanded for proceedings not
inconsistent with this opinion.
10
Reversed and remanded.
The courts below so computed the charges. Petitioner counts only 27 charges.
The record casts doubt on the accuracy of both computations.
E.g., Brown v. Mississippi, 297 U.S. 278, 56 S.Ct. 461, 80 L.Ed. 682;
Chambers v. Florida, 309 U.S. 227, 60 S.Ct. 472, 84 L.Ed. 716; Watts v.
Indiana, 338 U.S. 49, 69 S.Ct. 1347, 93 L.Ed. 1801; Turner v. Pennsylvania,
338 U.S. 62, 69 S.Ct. 1352, 93 L.Ed. 1810; Harris v. South Carolina, 338 U.S.
68, 69 S.Ct. 1354, 93 L.Ed. 1815; Leyra v. Denno, 347 U.S. 556, 74 S.Ct. 716,
98 L.Ed. 948.
E.g., Uveges v. Pennsylvania, 335 U.S. 437, 69 S.Ct. 184, 93 L.Ed. 127; Gibbs
v. Burke, 337 U.S. 773, 69 S.Ct. 1247, 93 L.Ed. 1686; Rice v. Olson, 324 U.S.
786, 65 S.Ct. 989, 89 L.Ed. 1367; Von Moltke v. Gillies, 332 U.S. 708, 68
S.Ct. 316, 92 L.Ed. 309; Palmer v. Ashe, 342 U.S. 134, 72 S.Ct. 191, 96 L.Ed.
154; Bute v. Illinois, 333 U.S. 640, 68 S.Ct. 763, 92 L.Ed. 986; Betts v. Brady,
316 U.S. 455, 62 S.Ct. 1252, 86 L.Ed. 1595. It was pointed out in the Uveges
case that a minority of the Court have contended that all persons charged with
crimes are entitled to counsel under the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments.
4
E.g., Smith v. O'Grady, 312 U.S. 329, 61 S.Ct. 572, 85 L.Ed. 859; Hawk v.
Olson, 326 U.S. 271, 66 S.Ct. 116, 90 L.Ed. 61; Palmer v. Ashe, 342 U.S. 134,
72 S.Ct. 191, 96 L.Ed. 154; Chessman v. Teets, 350 U.S. 3, 76 S.Ct. 34; Cf.
Moore v. Dempsey, 261 U.S. 86, 92, 43 S.Ct. 265, 267, 67 L.Ed. 543; Walker
v. Johnston, 312 U.S. 275, 61 S.Ct. 574, 85 L.Ed. 830.
When petitioner was brought before the trial judge to plead guilty the
prosecuting attorney talked at length about the charges against petitioner, but
said nothing about sentences which could be imposed. Petitioner's part in these
proceedings was very small. The following is the full record of his
participation:
(Mr. Docktor (the prosecuting attorney):) '* * * How old are you now?
'By the Defendant: Twenty-one.
'By Mr. Docktor: Twenty-one years of age. Is there anything you wish to state
to the Court about your case?
'By the Defendant: I throw myself
'By the Court: You will have to speak louder.
'By the Defendant: I throw myself at the mercy of the court, Your Honor.
'By Mr. Docktor: I wish to state for the record that the informations and
prosecutions were made by H. M. Jaynes of the Pennsylvania State Police.
'By the Court (addressing Defendant): Where have you worked since you were
paroled?
'By the Defendant: I worked at the Hazel.
'By the Court (addressing Defendant): Have you been working all of the time
since you were paroled in 1943?
'By the Defendant: No, sir.
'By the Court: 1944 I believe it was, wasn't it?

'By the Defendant: No, sir; I was working at the hospital, too.
'By the Court: Sir?
'By the Defendant: I was working at the hospital and Hazel.
'By the Court: At the hospital?
'By the Defendant: Yes.
'By the Court: How did you come to be working at the hospital?
'By the Defendant: I worked there. I was paroled for that.
'By the Court: You are the fellow who ran away from there while
you were on parole.
'By the Defendant: That is right; yes, sir.
'By the Court: Will you explain to me why the Court should extend any
leniency to you?
'By the Defendant: No, sir.
'By the Court: We have trusted you twice before and you have never complied
with any of the conditions that you were paroled on.
'By the Defendant: I tried to.
'By the Court: You didn't even try to. You could have continued to work up
there and you wouldn't do that. Where did you go to when you ran away from
the job at the hospital?
'By the Defendant: I started to work down at Hazel.
'By the Court: You were working around this town
'By the Defendant: Yes, sir.
'By the Court:while the officers were searching for you?
'By the Defendant: No.
'By the Court: Where were you?

'By the Defendant: I was here in town but not working.
'By the Court: You secured your parole on promise of good behavior.
'By the Defendant: Yes, sir.
'By the Court: In the meantime, you have committed numerous burglaries and
forgeries and various felonies? 335 U.S. 437, 69 S.Ct. 184, 93 L.Ed.
'By the Court: Now you want the Court to have mercy. There is an end to being
merciful. We did that in 1944. * * *'

Pennsylvania Ex Rel. Herman v. Claudy, 350 U.S. 116 (1956)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Pennsylvania Ex Rel. Herman v. Claudy, 350 U.S. 116 (1956)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Pennsylvania Ex Rel. Herman v. Claudy, 350 U.S. 116 (1956)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

350 U.S.

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, et rel. Stephen J.

In 1945 petitioner Stephen Herman pleaded guilty in a Pennsylvania state court

On appeal, the Superior Court of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania affirmed

Reversed and remanded.

'By the Court: 1944 I believe it was, wasn't it?

'By the Court: Where were you?

You might also like