Marshall v. Lonberger
459 U.S. 422 (1983)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d), a federal habeas court must presume the correctness of a state court's factual findings, including implicit findings on witness credibility, unless it concludes that the finding is not fairly supported by the record. A defendant's guilty plea is deemed constitutionally intelligent and voluntary if, based on the totality of the circumstances, a person of the defendant's intelligence and experience would have understood the nature of the charge to which they were pleading.
Facts:
- In 1971, a grand jury in Cook County, Illinois, indicted Robert Lonberger on four counts, including aggravated battery against Dorothy Maxwell and the attempted murder of Dorothy Maxwell by cutting her with a knife.
- On March 10, 1972, Lonberger pleaded guilty in the Illinois court. The formal 'conviction statement' recorded a conviction for 'AGGRAVATED BATTERY, ETC.'
- During the Illinois plea colloquy, the judge asked Lonberger if he was pleading guilty to 'the offense of aggravated battery on one Dorothy Maxwell, and that you did on the same date attempt on Dorothy Maxwell, with a knife.'
- Lonberger answered 'Yes, sir' to the judge's question, although the word 'murder' was not explicitly stated after the word 'attempt' during the colloquy.
- On January 29, 1975, Charita Lanier was murdered in her home in Toledo, Ohio.
- Police found evidence linking Lonberger to the Lanier murder scene, including his brand of cigarettes and blood-stained articles of his clothing.
Procedural Posture:
- Robert Lonberger was indicted in Ohio for aggravated murder, which included a 'specification' alleging his prior Illinois conviction for an offense involving a purposeful killing.
- The Ohio trial court held a pretrial hearing and ruled that the Illinois guilty plea was voluntary, making the conviction admissible.
- An Ohio jury convicted Lonberger of aggravated murder with the specification and sentenced him to death.
- The Ohio Court of Appeals reversed the aggravated murder conviction and the death sentence due to insufficient evidence of an underlying rape, but it affirmed a conviction for simple murder and upheld the finding that the specification was proven.
- Lonberger filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, which denied relief.
- Lonberger (appellee) appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, which reversed the District Court and ordered the writ to issue, finding the Illinois plea was constitutionally invalid.
- The Supreme Court granted certiorari, vacated the Sixth Circuit's judgment, and remanded for reconsideration in light of Sumner v. Mata.
- On remand, the Sixth Circuit reinstated its prior judgment, and the State of Ohio (Marshall) again petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the admission of a prior conviction at a state murder trial violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment where a federal habeas court finds, contrary to state court findings, that the defendant's guilty plea for the prior conviction was not intelligently made because he was not aware of the specific charge?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Rehnquist
No, the admission of the prior conviction does not violate the Due Process Clause. The federal habeas court failed to give the required deference under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d) to the state court's factual finding that the defendant's prior guilty plea was intelligent and voluntary. Federal habeas courts must presume that state court factual findings are correct and cannot redetermine the credibility of witnesses observed by the state court. The Ohio trial court's decision to admit the prior conviction was an implicit finding that it disbelieved Lonberger's testimony. Applying the presumption from Henderson v. Morgan that defense counsel explains the charges to the accused, a person of Lonberger's intelligence and experience would have understood that the judge's reference to 'attempt... with a knife' referred to the attempted murder charge in the indictment.
Dissenting - Justice Stevens
Yes, the admission of the prior conviction violated the Due Process Clause because the procedure was fundamentally unfair. The prosecutor's insistence on introducing the full, prejudicial Illinois indictment, rather than accepting the defendant's offer to stipulate to the conviction, served no legitimate state interest and was intended only to prejudice the jury. The underlying premise of Spencer v. Texas—that juries can be trusted to follow limiting instructions—has been undermined by later cases like Burgett and Bruton, which recognized that such instructions are often 'unmitigated fiction.' The State's refusal to bifurcate the proceeding or accept the stipulation unmasked its true interest: to enhance the likelihood of conviction through prejudicial evidence, thereby depriving the respondent of a fair trial.
Dissenting - Justice Brennan
Yes, the admission of the prior conviction violated the Due Process Clause because the conviction itself was unconstitutional. The majority misapplied the presumption from Henderson v. Morgan and improperly deferred to a state court finding that was not fairly supported by the record. The Court failed to distinguish between a defendant knowing the charges filed against him and knowing which specific charges are included in his guilty plea. Critically, under Illinois law at the time, Lonberger could not have been convicted of both aggravated battery and attempted murder for the same act, making it reasonable for him to believe the judge's reference to 'attempt' was mere redundancy rather than a separate, more serious offense.
Dissenting - Justice Blackmun
Yes, the admission violated the Due Process Clause. The dissent joins Justice Stevens's opinion, emphasizing the 'utter absence of a legitimate state interest' in introducing the indictment once the prosecution refused to accept the defendant's proffered stipulation. This refusal demonstrated that the prosecution's sole purpose was to inject prejudice into the trial.
Analysis:
This case significantly reinforces the high deference federal courts must afford to state court factual findings under the habeas corpus statute, 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d). It establishes that this deference extends to implicit credibility determinations made by the state trial judge. The decision also solidifies the use of the Henderson v. Morgan presumption, allowing courts to infer a defendant's understanding of the charges from the totality of circumstances, particularly representation by counsel, even where the plea colloquy is imperfect. The strong dissents, however, highlight the ongoing judicial tension between procedural deference to state courts and the constitutional guarantee of a fundamentally fair trial, especially regarding the use of highly prejudicial evidence.
Unlock the full brief for Marshall v. Lonberger