Case Title: Admire v. Gladden

Citation: 227 Or. 370, 362 P.2d 380

Docket Number: 

State: oregon

Court: Oregon Supreme Court

Date: 1961-05-31T00:00:00Z

Document:
Affirmed May 31, 1961.
*371 Thomas W. Hansen, Salem, argued the cause and filed a brief for appellant.
Harold W. Adams, Assistant Attorney General, Salem, argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief were Robert Y. Thornton, Attorney General, and Robert G. Danielson, Assistant Attorney General.
Before McALLISTER, Chief Justice, and ROSSMAN, WARNER, PERRY, SLOAN, O'CONNELL and GOODWIN, Justices.
AFFIRMED.
PERRY, J.
The plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the circuit court denying his prayer for relief under the Post-Conviction Hearing Act.
The facts in the record disclose the plaintiff was arrested in Redmond, Oregon, on February 15, 1956, on a charge of operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor. On the 16th, a sergeant of the state police contacted the plaintiff at the city jail and advised him that he was investigating him on a charge of statutory rape. The plaintiff, in the presence of the state police officer and the chief of the city police, related his associations with this minor. His statement, which was a confession of guilt, was reduced to writing and signed by him in the presence of the officers. A warrant for the arrest of the plaintiff was issued on this same date and on the 17th of February he was brought before a magistrate where the record discloses he was advised of the nature of the charge against him. He declined the appointment of counsel and waived preliminary hearing. Bail was set and, on failure to give bail, he was remanded *372 to the custody of the sheriff of Jefferson county. On the 21st day of February, the plaintiff was brought before the circuit court for Jefferson county and the record states:
On the same date an Information charging the defendant with the crime of statutory rape was filed. The defendant thereupon entered his plea of guilty. The journal entry of this proceeding recites the following:
Pursuant to the requirements of ORS 137.112 and the order of the court, the plaintiff was sent to the Eastern Oregon State Hospital for a complete psychiatric examination. A portion of the report of this examination is as follows:
The plaintiff was then returned to the jurisdiction of the circuit court of Jefferson county, and on April 17, 1956, he was sentenced to the state penitentiary for a period of time not to exceed 20 years. The record further discloses that the plaintiff had been married and divorced at the time of sentencing, and was of the age of 31 years.
The record also discloses that Clyde Collins and Joseph Dowdy both plead guilty to statutory rape involving the same child and were, on the 8th day of March, 1956, each sentenced to two years in the state penitentiary.
Plaintiff's confession, which he made to the police officers and does not deny making, states that he and a Mrs. Monical had been living together in Madras, Oregon; that Mrs. Monical had three children, two girls and a boy, who were living with them in a two-room apartment. The confession further states:
Plaintiff's post-conviction petition alleges in general:
1. There is nothing in the record or in any of the proceedings that would indicate the plaintiff did not understand each step of the proceedings which were had or that he was not fully advised at all times of his rights and acted in accordance with his best judgment. The testimony of the officers who were present fully confirms the recorded statements of what occurred. Plaintiff's testimony to the effect that Mr. Allbright, the district attorney, told him his sentence would not be more than two years if he would plead *375 guilty is most unconvincing. In fact, it appears to be an afterthought after reaching the penitentiary.
2. Plaintiff's principal complaint seems to be that he received a twenty-year sentence while two others who had committed the same crime with the same girl received only two years, and that the sentence he received was due to information the trial judge received not in his presence.
It is not a denial of due process for a trial judge to inform himself of matters connected with the commission of a crime that were not developed in the course of a trial. In Re Application of Hodge, 262 F2d 778; Hoover v. U.S., 268 F2d 787; Williams v. New York, 337 US 241, 69 S Ct 1079, 93 L Ed 1337; 16A CJS 683, Constitutional Law § 593.
3. The record does not disclose the circumstances under which the others committed their crimes, but plaintiff's own statement of his act, together with the report of the psychiatrist, which he was permitted to read, is convincing that plaintiff was entirely lacking in moral conscience. It is little wonder the trial court was inclined to give the maximum permitted by law and leave the determination of when, if ever, a reformation might take place in the plaintiff to the judgment of the State Board of Probation and Parole.
Under the circumstances, even assuming we could consider that something prejudicial was said to the trial court out of the presence of the defendant, we cannot believe it could have influenced in the slightest his judgment.
Our examination of the entire record convinces us that there is no merit in plaintiff's appeal.
The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.