Case Title: State v. Lopez

Citation: 441 P.2d 764, 79 N.M. 235

Docket Number: 

State: new-mexico

Court: New Mexico Supreme Court

Date: 1968-06-10T00:00:00Z

Document:
441 P.2d 764 (1968) 79 N.M. 235 STATE of New Mexico, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Johnny LOPEZ, Defendant-Appellant. No. 8406. Supreme Court of New Mexico. June 10, 1968. Peter M. McDevitt, Gallup, for appellant. Boston E. Witt, Atty. Gen., Donald W. Miller, Asst. Atty. Gen., Santa Fe, for appellee. MOISE, Justice. Petitioner appeals from an order denying him relief as sought in a petition filed pursuant to Rule 93 (§ 21-1-1(93), N.M.S.A. 1953). The record discloses that the sentence now being attacked was entered October 29, 1965, and was for not less than one year nor more than five years, imposed on a plea of guilty to a charge of escaping from *765 jail, contrary to § 40A-22-8, N.M.S.A. 1953, which reads: It appears that on September 27, 1965, while petitioner was serving a sentence in jail for violation of municipal ordinances against drunkenness and escape from jail, he was taken to a meeting of Alcoholics Anonymous conducted for city jail inmates in the police magistrate's court room in the same building where the jail is located, and that when the meeting was over petitioner and other prisoners left the building. Petitioner returned five hours later. The charge under § 40A-22-8 was then filed. Petitioner waived counsel and a preliminary hearing in justice of the peace court and was bound over to the district court for trial. Upon appearing in district court, the following occurred: Thereafter, petitioner appeared in court and was given the sentence from which he seeks relief. The trial court held a hearing at which petitioner was present with counsel, and thereupon made findings and conclusions and thereafter an order denying relief was entered. This appeal followed. Petitioner's first point asserts that his incarceration on a charge of escaping from jail is unlawful because his detention in jail was in violation of his constitutional rights under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States. Briefly stated, it is petitioner's position that since he is a chronic alcoholic, confining him as a violator of criminal ordinances prohibiting drunkenness amounted to deprivation of his constitutional rights because chronic alcoholism is a sickness and cannot be punished as a crime. He relies on Robinson v. State of California, 370 U.S. 660, 82 S. Ct. 1417, 8 L. Ed. 2d 758 (1962). That case clearly held that a statute making drug addiction a crime and providing imprisonment for violation inflicts cruel and unusual punishment contrary to the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. Reliance is also placed on Easter v. District of Columbia, 124 U.S.App.D.C. 33, 361 F.2d 50 (1966), where it was held that chronic alcoholism which deprives a defendant of volition is a defense to a charge of drunkenness. Driver v. Hinnant, 356 F.2d 761 (4th Cir.1966), is likewise relied on. This case holds that under the rationale of Robinson, supra, the petitioner could not be held to have violated a statute making public drunkenness a crime where he asserted a defense of chronic alcoholism, and he was accordingly entitled to release under a writ of habeas corpus. We do not find it necessary to consider whether there is any merit to the argument that the ordinance was unconstitutionally applied. The general rule would appear to be that so long as the commitment to custody is valid on its face, it is no defense to a charge of escaping jail that the incarceration was based on a violation of a law which was allegedly unconstitutionally applied. See People ex rel. Haines v. Hunt, 229 App.Div. 419, 242 N.Y.S. 105 (1930); Kelley v. Meyers, 124 Or. 322, 263 P. 903, 56 A.L.R. 661 (1928); Annot., 70 A.L.R.2d 1430, 1452 (1960). Accordingly, petitioner's first point is ruled against him. This is done without reference to the fact that the record discloses that at the time of the escape for which he here seeks relief, he was being held in jail upon another charge of escape. No attack is made upon the validity of that detention and, accordingly, even if there were merit to the claim based upon asserted unconstitutionality, the fact of the second commitment would be sufficient basis for denying the relief sought. Petitioner's next attack is directed to claimed shortcomings and defects in the information given by the court at the time petitioner waived counsel and pleaded guilty on the escape charge, and that petitioner was thereby deprived of certain of his rights under the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States. We have set forth exactly what transpired when petitioner was before the court for arraignment. The rules applicable for overcoming waiver where a plea of guilty is entered were announced in Moore v. State of Michigan, 355 U.S. 155, 78 S. Ct. 191, 2 L. Ed. 2d 167 (1957), where it was held that petitioner had the burden of showing by a preponderance of the evidence that he did not intelligently and understandably waive his right to counsel. Also, that a finding of waiver is not lightly to be made. See Bouldin v. Cox, 76 N.M. 93, 412 P.2d 392 (1966); Annot., 2 L. Ed. 2d 1644, 1650 (1958). The trial court here found that petitioner was adequately advised in every material respect, and that he had thereupon knowingly and intelligently waived counsel. *767 With this finding and the conclusion based thereon, we are disposed to agree. Petitioner details four areas in which the court's advice failed to explain certain material considerations, and claims that because of this the waiver was not intelligently made. The four deficiencies are set forth as: (1) failure to make clear that counsel would be provided at public expense and without expense to petitioner; (2) failure to explain that petitioner was entitled to have counsel appointed to advise him at his arraignment as distinguished from representing him at trial; (3) failure to explain the elements of the offense charged; and (4) failure to make inquiry concerning facts whereby possible defenses available to petitioner might have been disclosed. He principally relies on Von Moltke v. Gillies, 332 U.S. 708, 68 S. Ct. 316, 92 L. Ed. 309 (1948), and Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U.S. 458, 58 S. Ct. 1019, 82 L. Ed. 1461 (1938), in support of his position. We are not impressed that any defects in the advice or information given by the judge to petitioner were so serious as in any sense to cause the waiver expressly given by him to be considered as having been made involuntarily or unintelligently. As pointed out in State v. Coates, 78 N.M. 366, 431 P.2d 744 (1967), no hard and fast rule can be laid down as to what must be stated in each case in order to adequately explain a prisoner's rights before permitting him to waive counsel. Each case must be decided on its own peculiar facts which shall include consideration of the background, education, training, experience and conduct of the defendant and should proceed as long and as thoroughly as the circumstances demand. Spanbauer v. Burke, 374 F.2d 67 (7th Cir.1966), cert. den. 389 U.S. 861, 88 S. Ct. 111, 19 L. Ed. 2d 127. See also Twining v. United States, 321 F.2d 432 (5th Cir.1963), cert. den. 376 U.S. 965, 84 S. Ct. 1126, 11 L. Ed. 2d 982; Post v. Boles, 218 F. Supp. 658 (N.D.W.Va. 1963). The court's finding that the waiver by petitioner was knowingly and voluntarily made is supported by a preponderance of the evidence and, accordingly, should not be interfered with by us. State v. Gilbert, 78 N.M. 437, 432 P.2d 402 (1967). The judgment appealed from is affirmed. It is so ordered. CHAVEZ, C.J., and CARMODY, J., concur.