Cherrie v. United States, 179 F.2d 94, 10th Cir. (1949)

179 F.
2d 94
CHERRIE
v.
UNITED STATES.
No. 3977.
United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit.

December 29, 1949.
B. Mack Bryant, Wichita, Kan., for appellant.

John S. Miller, Asst. U. S. Atty., Cheyenne, Wyo. (John C. Pickett, U. S.
Atty., Cheyenne, Wyo., was with him on the brief) for the United States.
Before PHILLIPS, Chief Judge, and HUXMAN and MURRAH, Circuit
Judges.
PHILLIPS, Chief Judge.
This is an appeal from the denial of a motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. 2255 to
vacate a sentence of imprisonment.
Cherrie was apprehended upon charges of violating 18 U.S.C.A. 415 [now

2314].
Thereafter, on June 24, 1948, he signed a written waiver of indictment, the

material portions of which are set out in marginal Note1 .
On the same day, an information was filed. It contained four counts, each
charging a violation of 18 U.S.C.A. 415 [now 2314]. Cherrie was brought
before the court, and the following colloquy occurred between the court and
Cherrie:
"The Court: * * * You are held under a charge of transporting a falsely made
security, a check dated October 5, 1945, drawn on the United States National
Bank, Denver, Colorado, payable to P. J. Ryan, signed by M. F. Johnson for the
Drilling and Exploration Company of Denver in the amount of $158 to be

transported in interstate commerce from the City of Evanston in the County of
Unita in the State and District of Wyoming to the City of Denver. And in the
second count transporting a false security from the City of Rawlins in the
County of Carbon in the state and District of Wyoming to the City of Denver.
Third count 13th of October 1945 in the District of Wyoming a check dated
October 5, 1945 caused to be transported in interstate commerce from the City
of Laramie to the City of Denver. Fourth count transporting a false security in
the sum of $158.18 in interstate commerce from the City of Cheyenne in the
County of Laramie to the City of Denver. Under this form of charge upon
which you are held you have the right to have your case presented to a grand
jury in which event you can plead guilty or not guilty and if not guilty, be
entitled to trial by jury but the law provides you can waive an indictment and
consent to be prosecuted by an information filed by the United States Attorney
in which event you have the identical rights under an information as you have
under an indictment. You understand that? A. Yes, sir.
6
"The Court: Under these circumstances do you desire to waive an indictment?

A. Yes, sir.
7* * * * * *
8
"The Court: Are you ready to plead to this information of which I have
heretofore outlined in regard to the charge against you without the assistance of
counsel to which you are entitled? A. Yes, sir.
"The Court: And at this time do you plead guilty or not guilty? A. Guilty."
10
The court then continued the matter for a pre-sentence investigation, and on
August 5, sentenced Cherrie to imprisonment for three years on each count, to
run concurrently.
11
The report of the probation officer disclosed that Cherrie was sentenced to a
term of 2 to 20 years in the Washington State Reformatory in 1941 and was
paroled after serving 11 months of his sentence.
12
The motion to vacate was predicated on the ground that Cherrie did not
voluntarily, intelligently, and competently waive his right to the benefit of
counsel when he signed the written waiver of indictment and when he entered
his plea of guilty to the several counts of the information. In disposing of the
motion, the trial judge, in a written memorandum, recited the proceedings on
June 24, 1948, and stated that he personally remembered what occurred at such
proceedings, and further said: "This personal recollection impressed me with
the intelligence of the defendant and that he knew what he was doing at the
time so that he intelligently waived the assistance of counsel after he had been
advised that he was entitled to it by law."
13
It will be observed that Cherrie signed the waiver of indictment without the
advice of counsel, and that when he was brought before the court, the only
statement advising him of his constitutional right to counsel for his defense was
by the indirect statement: "Are you ready to plead to this information of which
I have heretofore outlined in regard to the charge against you without the
assistance of counsel to which you are entitled?"
14
In Von Moltke v. Gillies, 332 U.S. 708, 722-723, 68 S.Ct. 316, 322, 92 L.Ed.
309, the court said: "It is the solemn duty of a federal judge before whom a
defendant appears without counsel to make a thorough inquiry and to take all
steps necessary to insure the fullest protection of this constitutional right at
every stage of the proceedings.
******
15
16
"We have said: `The constitutional right of an accused to be represented by

counsel invokes, of itself, the protection of a trial court, in which the accused
whose life or liberty is at stake is without counsel. This protecting duty
imposes the serious and weighty responsibility upon the trial judge of
determining whether there is an intelligent and competent waiver by the
accused.' To discharge this duty properly in light of the strong presumption
against waiver of the constitutional right to counsel, a judge must investigate as
long and as thoroughly as the circumstances of the case before him demand.
The fact that an accused may tell him that he is informed of his right to counsel
and desires to waive this right does not automatically end the judge's
responsibility. To be valid such waiver must be made with an apprehension of
the nature of the charges, the statutory offenses included within them, the range
of allowable punishments thereunder, possible defenses to the charges and
circumstances in mitigation thereof, and all other facts essential to a broad
understanding of the whole matter. A judge can make certain that an accused's
professed waiver of counsel is understandingly and wisely made only from a
penetrating and comprehensive examination of all the circumstances under
which such a plea is tendered."
17
We are of the opinion that the mere statement "Are you ready to plead * * *
without the assistance of counsel to which you are entitled?" did not discharge
the duty of the court. When a defendant appears before the court without
counsel, we think, as a minimum, the court, in order to discharge its duty, must
advise the defendant of the seriousness of the charge, that the Constitution of
the United States guarantees him the right to have the assistance of counsel for
his defense, and that if he is unable to employ counsel, it is the duty of the
court to appoint, and the court will appoint, counsel for him. Ordinarily, only
by such an inquiry can the court be sure that the defendant understands his
constitutional right and intelligently waives it.2 Of course, if the defendant is
learned in the law, or it otherwise clearly appears that he knows his
constitutional rights, a less inquiry may suffice.
18
Section 2255, supra, in part provides: "Unless the motion and the files and
records of the case conclusively show that the prisoner is entitled to no relief,
the court shall cause notice thereof to be served upon the United States
attorney, grant a prompt hearing thereon, determine the issues and make
findings of fact and conclusions of law with respect thereto."
19
Here, we think the files and records did not conclusively show that Cherrie was
not entitled to any relief and that the court should have granted him a hearing
on his motion.
20
Reversed and remanded for further proceedings in accordance with the views
herein expressed.
Notes:
1
"* * * the above named defendant, who is accused of violating Title 18,
Section 415 [now 2314] U.S.C.A. (Transporting falsely made securities
interstate) being advised of the nature of the charge and of his rights, hereby
waives in open court prosecution by indictment and consents that the
proceeding may be by information instead of by indictment
C. C. Cherrie
Defendant."
See Snell v. United States, 10 Cir., 174 F.2d 580

Cherrie v. United States, 179 F.2d 94, 10th Cir. (1949)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Cherrie v. United States, 179 F.2d 94, 10th Cir. (1949)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

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

Cherrie v. United States, 179 F.2d 94, 10th Cir. (1949)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

179 F.

United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit.

B. Mack Bryant, Wichita, Kan., for appellant.

Cherrie was apprehended upon charges of violating 18 U.S.C.A. 415 [now

Thereafter, on June 24, 1948, he signed a written waiver of indictment, the

Drilling and Exploration Company of Denver in the amount of $158 to be

"The Court: Under these circumstances do you desire to waive an indictment?

"We have said: `The constitutional right of an accused to be represented by

See Snell v. United States, 10 Cir., 174 F.2d 580

You might also like