Fred Bridges v. United States

259 F.2d 611 Fred BRIDGES, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee. No. 15493. United States Court of Appeals Ninth Circuit. April 21, 1958, Certiorari Denied Oct. 13, 1958, See 79 S.Ct. 73. Fred Bridges, in pro. per. Lloyd H. Burke, U.S. Atty., Richard H. Foster, Asst. U.S. Atty., San Francisco, Cal., for appellee. Before DENMAN, BONE and FEE, Circuit Judges. BONE, Circuit Judge. 1 Appellant Bridges was named as one of two defendants in a five count indictment (criminal cause No. 33917 in the lower court). The first count in this indictment charged Bridges with a violation of the Harrison Narcotic Act. The second count charged him with a violation of the Jones-Miller Act. These two alleged violations occurred at the same time and as parts of one so-called 'transaction' on January 7, 1954. 1 2 In the fifth count, Bridges and one Nayland Jackson were accused of conspiring together to violate certain sections of Titles 21 and 26 of the United States Code. 2 3 In the third and fourth counts of the indictment, Jackson was accused of violating certain provisions of the Harrison Narcotic Act and the Jones-Miller Act. 4 On May 26, 1954, Criminal Cause No. 33917 came on regularly…

Appellant Bridges was named as one of two defendants in a five count indictment (criminal cause No. 33917 in the lower court). The first count in this indictment charged Bridges with a violation of the Harrison Narcotic Act. The second count charged him with a violation of the Jones-Miller Act. These two alleged violations occurred at the same time and as parts of one so-called “transaction” on January 7, 1954.

In the fifth count, Bridges and one Nayland Jackson were accused of conspiring together to violate certain sections of Titles 21 and 26 of the United States Code.

*613 In the third and fourth counts of the indictment, Jackson was accused of violating certain provisions of the Harrison Narcotic Act and the Jones-Miller Act.

On May 26, 1954, Criminal Cause No. 83917 came on regularly for trial before Judge Harris of the lower court at which time counsel for Bridges stated in open court (with Bridges present) that so far as indictment number 33917 was concerned, he desired to withdraw Bridges’ plea of “not guilty” theretofore entered, this to permit Bridges to present “a new and different plea as to the first two counts” of this indictment. Counsel for the United States…

(concurring).

At the outset of every proceeding, this Court is bound to consider its own jurisdiction and the jurisdiction of the lower court. Once it appeared from the record that a claim could be made that Bridges did not completely understand to what indictment or to what counts he pleaded guilty, the trial court had jurisdiction of the sentences on both counts. It was mandatory that the question be determined. Complete lack of understanding could have been found if the record and the recollection of the judge justified the finding. On the other hand, the trial judge could have found and did find here fliat that court did “not accept the plea without first determining that the plea” was “made-voluntarily with understanding of the nature of the charge.” Rule 11, Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, 18 U.S.C.A. The form of the motion, what Bridges prayed for, admitted or conceded, and the verbiage of the order of denial are immaterial.

The principle laid down in Crow v. United States, 9 Cir., 186 F.2d 704 , and like cases arising under § 2255, is horn-book law. 1 The series of eases above noted has, however, nothing to do with the situation here. The contention that the motion…

(dissenting on several jurisdictional grounds and on the merits if jurisdiction exists).

A. The District Court lacked, jurisdiction to proceed to sentence Bridges because he was never arraigned on and did not plead guilty to the indictment returned by the grand jury.

Though Bridges nowhere raises the • contention, we are required to entertain it as if in a writ of error coram nobis, the absence of a plea of guilty being an error “of the most fundamental character ; that is, such as rendered the proceeding irregular and invalid.” United States v. Mayer, 235 U.S. 55, 69 , 35 S.Ct. 16, 19 , 59 L.Ed. 129 ; and see United States v. Morgan, 346 U.S. 502 , 74 S.Ct. 247 , 98 L.Ed. 248 .

The number of Bridges’ indictment in the District Court was 33,917. He never pleaded guilty to that indictment, the transcript record showing that on arraignment before the District Court he pleaded guilty to an entirely different indictment, No. 33,817. The colloquy is shown by the reporter’s typed transcript to which he certifies “that the foregoing transcript * * * is a true and correct transcript of the matter therein contained.” It is as follows:

This court assumes that this is a typing error of…