Case Title: Martinez v. People

Citation: 299 P.2d 510

Docket Number: 

State: colorado

Court: Colorado Supreme Court

Date: 1956-07-16T00:00:00Z

Document:
299 P.2d 510 (1956) Besalirez MARTINEZ, Plaintiff in Error, v. The PEOPLE of the State of Colorado, Defendant in Error. No. 17702. Supreme Court of Colorado, En Banc. July 16, 1956. Rehearing Denied August 13, 1956. *511 Collins, Henry & Dolan, Denver, for plaintiff in error. Duke W. Dunbar, Atty. Gen., Frank E. Hickey, Deputy Atty. Gen., Norman H. Comstock, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the People. MOORE, Justice. By information filed in the district court of Eagle county, plaintiff in error, to whom we will refer as defendant, was accused of the murder of Perfecto Cruz. Marcelino P. Gutierrez, a member of the bar of the State of New Mexico appeared for defendant on the day of arraignment, December 16, 1954. The record made in connection with the arraignment is in part as follows: January 13, 1955, Mr. Gutierrez by order of this Court was admitted to the bar of Colorado for the sole purpose of representing defendant, and January 24, 1955, the case was tried to a jury which returned a verdict of guilty of murder of the first degree with the penalty fixed at death. Motion for a new trial was filed, argued and denied by the court February 24, 1955, and judgment was entered upon the verdict. Defendant brings the case to this Court by writ of error and is represented here by counsel who appear on his behalf for the first time. Assignments of Error upon which counsel for defendant rely for reversal of the judgment are as follows: We take judicial notice of the application of Mr. Gutierrez for permission to represent defendant upon the trial of this action. The order of this Court dated January 13, 1955 entered upon that application reads as follows: In substance, the contention now made on behalf of defendant is that because Mr. Gutierrez was not licensed to practice law in Colorado and did not have an associate resident counsel at the time of arraignment, the plea of not guilty was a nullity and no issues were formed; thus the entire trial was ineffectual and void. C.R.S.1953, 12-1-18, provides: The order of this Court authorizing Mr. Gutierrez to represent defendant was entered eleven days before the commencement of the trial, and although at the time of arraignment no authority from this Court had been granted for him to appear on behalf of defendant, no question was raised at any state of the proceedings before the trial court concerning the validity of the plea of not guilty. C.R.S.1953, 39-7-9, provides in part: Mr. Gutierrez was the attorney chosen voluntarily by defendant to represent him in this case and no limitation or restriction was placed upon his power or authority to proceed with the trial of the action. Our examination of the Bill of Exceptions leads to the conclusion that the representation provided by Mr. Gutierrez was adequate. The argument advanced in this Court for the first time that in all murder cases an adequate representation of the accused requires the entry of a plea of *513 not guilty by reason of insanity, is without merit. We are not advised of any case in any jurisdiction which is authority for that proposition. The guilt of defendant was established beyond any possible question of doubt and the circumstances of the killing were such as to fully justify the jury, in whose discretion the matter rested, in inflicting the penalty of death. Without provocation of any kind, defendant entered the bar and poolroom operated by the deceased and, using a 30-30 rifle, shot down an unarmed man without warning and fired a total of three shots, two of which were fired into the back of the deceased as he sought to avoid further injury. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed and execution of the judgment shall be carried out during the week ending September 8, 1956.