question, June 15, 1973, showed Walden was competent to enter a plea of guilty. He felt that had there been any effect from the medications it would have produced drowsiness, slurred speech or drooping eyes. At the time of the plea, neither Walden's attorney nor I, noticed any such symptoms.
Similar medical opinions were received from Dr. Dennis M. Jurczak, a board certified psychiatrist employed by the Bureau of Prisons who had treated Mr. Walden while he was incarcerated at Danbury, and Dr. Francis H. Hoffman, a board certified psychiatrist who is head of the psychiatric division of the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas. Only Dr. Martin Adler, a pharmacologist at the Temple University Medical School, thought that the drug dosages were in the "upper limits" or a "little high" and that there might be an effect on Mr. Walden's ability to think or make important decisions. Dr. Adler had never seen Mr. Walden nor had Dr. Adler read the notes of testimony from the day Mr. Walden's plea was entered. Dr. Adler spoke of the possible effects of the medications, but did not say that such effects had been produced in Mr. Walden. To make the record clear, however, insofar as there is any conflict between the testimony of Dr. Adler and Doctors Tapolow, Jurczak, and Hoffman I accept the latter and reject the former.
It is clear that the petitioner failed to satisfy his burden of proof that he was mentally or emotionally incapacitated. Mr. Walden asserts that if he had been in his right mind and thinking clearly, he would not have pleaded guilty. He also states that he recalls recovering from this condition sometime after June 15, 1973. Despite such statements, the testimony adduced at the evidentiary hearing overwhelmingly establishes that Mr. Walden was not rendered incompetent by the medications he took.
Petitioner next argues that his plea was induced by an "agreement" between his counsel and the United States Attorney's office as to the sentence which petitioner would receive, an agreement which was not honored.
If true, these allegations would render Walden's plea involuntary. Santobello v. New York, 404 U.S. 257, 262, 92 S. Ct. 495, 499, 30 L. Ed. 2d 427 (1971); United States v. Valenciano, 495 F.2d 585, 587-88 (3d Cir. 1974); Moorhead v. United States, 456 F.2d 992, 995 (3d Cir. 1972). However if petitioner's counsel merely "predicted" the sentence Walden would likely receive after a guilty plea, the plea would not thereby be rendered involuntary. Paradiso v. United States, 482 F.2d 409, 412 (3d Cir. 1973); Masciola v. United States, 469 F.2d 1057, 1059 (3d Cir. 1972).
At the hearing,
petitioner's attorney, Harry R. Seay, Esquire, testified that he had neither made a deal with the United States Attorney, nor had he represented to Walden that he would receive a sentence of two years or less if he pleaded guilty. Mr. Seay did admit that he had advised Walden that if he pleaded guilty and cooperated with the government's drug strike force, his cooperation would be made known to the Court at the time of sentencing.
Mr. Seay said that he had had numerous discussions with Mr. Oliver Burt and Mr. J. Clayton Undercofler, Assistant U.S. Attorneys, and felt that the government had a very strong case. The fact that the government was interested in Mr. Walden as a source of information reinforced his belief that cooperation by Walden, along with his guilty plea, could possibly result in a lower sentence. Although Mr. Walden's testimony at the hearing ran directly counter to that of his attorney, I find Mr. Seay's testimony to be creditable and reject Mr. Walden's insofar as it conflicts with that of Mr. Seay.
The advice given to petitioner by Mr. Seay was perfectly appropriate under the circumstances and is in fact the very type of practical evaluation of a client's situation that a competent attorney should provide. Such advice clearly amounts to no more than a prediction "based on his [counsel's] experience in criminal matters, on his knowledge of the tendencies of the sentencing judge, or on any of a number of other factors unrelated to any putative agreement with the prosecutor," United States v. Hawthorne, 502 F.2d 1183, 1188 (3d Cir. 1974), and could not reasonably have been construed otherwise by Mr. Walden. Compare United States ex rel. Oliver v. Vincent, 498 F.2d 340, 345-46 (2d Cir. 1974); Mosher v. LaVallee, 351 F. Supp. 1101, 1111 (S.D.N.Y. 1972), aff'd 491 F.2d 1346 (2d Cir.), cert. denied 416 U.S. 906, 94 S. Ct. 1611, 40 L. Ed. 2d 111 (1974).
Petitioner's final ground for relief is that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel.
Specifically, Walden argues that Mr. Seay told him that he had made no investigation of the charges against petitioner nor made any preparations for conducting a defense. Petitioner contends that he was not guilty of the crime charged and that if Mr. Seay had made an appropriate investigation he would have discovered that the funds alleged in the indictment to be income were in fact the proceeds of loans made to him by others.
In this Circuit, "the standard of adequacy of legal services as in other professions is the exercise of the customary skill and knowledge which normally prevails at the time and place [footnote omitted]." Moore v. United States, 432 F.2d 730, 736 (3d Cir. 1970); see also United States ex rel. Hart v. Davenport, 478 F.2d 203, 210 (3d Cir. 1973); United States ex rel. Green v. Rundle, 434 F.2d 1112, 1113 (3d Cir. 1970). This standard applies both to counsel's courtroom performance and his out-of-court investigation and preparation of the case. Moore, supra, 432 F.2d at 739. Petitioner has failed to meet his burden of proof on this claim also. See Mims v. United States, F. Supp. (E.D. Pa. 1976) and cases cited therein.
There is no credible evidence that Mr. Seay ever informed petitioner that no investigation had been conducted or that no preparation of the defense had been made. As noted earlier, Mr. Seay testified that he had met with Assistant United States Attorneys C. Oliver Burt and J. Clayton Undercofler on several occasions and received evidence of how strong the Government's case against petitioner was. Seay stated that he conferred with the petitioner at Graterford and at his office on several occasions. I find that Mr. Seay exercised reasonable judgment on his client's behalf in encouraging Mr. Walden to plead guilty and that Seay therefore satisfied the requirement of normal competency. To the extent petitioner's testimony suggests the contrary. I reject it.
For the reasons set forth above, petitioner's motion to vacate his conviction must be denied.
AND NOW, this 30th day of June 1976, for the reasons set forth in the foregoing Opinion, petitioner's motion to vacate his sentence under the provisions of 18 U.S.C. § 2255 is hereby denied.
BY THE COURT:
J. William Dilter, Jr. / J.