Title: Griffin v. State

State: kansas

Issuer: Kansas Supreme Court

Document:

204 Kan. 340 (1969)
461 P.2d 814
DONALD O'NEAL GRIFFIN, Appellant,
v.
THE STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee.
No. 45,709

Supreme Court of Kansas.
Opinion filed December 6, 1969.
Roger K. Wilson, of Wichita, argued the cause and was on the brief for the appellant.
Richard K. Hollingsworth, Deputy County Attorney, argued the cause, and Kent Frizzell, Attorney General, Keith Sanborn, County Attorney, and Donald Foster, Deputy County Attorney, were with him on the brief for the appellee.
The opinion of the court was delivered by
PRICE, C.J.:
This appeal is from an order denying relief in a proceeding under K.S.A. 60-1507.
In September 1964 a complaint was filed charging petitioner with burglary in the first degree. It also appears that he was charged in police court with being drunk  the two offenses being simultaneous in point of time and place. Upon his plea of guilty to the drunkenness charge he was sentenced to serve 60 days at the city prison farm.
In November 1964 petitioner appeared in court in person and with Mr. Price Woodard, his retained attorney, on the burglary charge. A preliminary examination was waived, and petitioner was bound over to the district court for trial.
An information charging burglary in the first degree was filed. On March 8, 1965, petitioner appeared in the district court for arraignment. Mr. Woodard was present. It appeared that he had not been compensated for his services and that petitioner was without funds. The court then, with the consent of petitioner, formally *341 appointed Mr. Woodard to represent him in the district court proceedings.
Formal arraignment was waived, whereupon the court inquired of petitioner and Mr. Woodard in detail  a portion of which follows:
"...
"A. Yes, sir.
...
"A. Yes.
"Q. You know what you are charged with?
"A. Yes.
"A. Yes, sir.
"A. Yes, sir, I know.
"A. Yes, sir.
"MR. WOODARD: Yes, your honor.
"A. I want to enter a plea.
"Q. You want to enter a plea in the case?
"A. Yes.
"A. Guilty.
"A. Yes, sir.
"A. No.
"A. No, sir."
Accordingly, petitioner was sentenced to confinement in the penitentiary for a term of not less than ten years nor more than twenty-one *342 years as provided by K.S.A. 21-523. Oral application for a parole was denied.
On August 5, 1968, petitioner, pro se, filed a motion to vacate and set aside his sentence. The motion, among other things, alleged that while petitioner was confined at the city prison farm on the drunkenness sentence four police officers interrogated him concerning the burglary in question and told him that unless he signed a confession the habitual criminal statute would be invoked in the event he was convicted; that he signed a confession under coercion; that he had been denied counsel and not advised of his constitutional rights and of his right to appeal, and that he was promised a five to ten year sentence upon a plea of guilty to second degree burglary when in truth and in fact he was sentenced to ten to twenty-one years upon his plea of guilty to first degree burglary. The motion named no witnesses to be called to testify, but did request that "all state records and two deputy sheriffs, together with his former parole officer"  be made available to him.
The motion came on for hearing on January 3, 1969. Petitioner was not present in person or by counsel. The court, after examining the files, records and transcript of the former proceedings found that they conclusively showed petitioner was entitled to no relief; that the plea of guilty was entered in accordance with law and that throughout the entire proceedings petitioner had been represented by counsel; that petitioner's motion failed to list any facts or witnesses to substantiate his claim, and that his uncorroborated statements were insufficient to cause the court to grant an evidentiary hearing. Relief was denied.
Petitioner has appealed, and present counsel was appointed to conduct the appeal.
Most of the petitioner's contentions are so patently frivolous as to warrant no mention. His chief complaint, however, appears to be the court erred in not appointing counsel and in denying him an evidentiary hearing on his motion.
This case is not unlike the two recent cases of Sharp v. State, 203 Kan. 937, 457 P.2d 14, and Mathues v. State, 204 Kan. 204, 460 P.2d 545. In the Sharp case it was held that the denial of an evidentiary hearing was not error.
Here, as in the above cases, the record shows a painstaking effort by the trial court to ascertain the facts surrounding the plea of guilty. Here, petitioner at all times, was represented by competent *343 and experienced counsel of his own choosing  who incidentally  had known petitioner all of his life. Petitioner was no novice  he was 22 years of age and had a previous conviction of burglary in the first degree. His motion for relief under 60-1507 even stated that he was not represented by counsel at his preliminary examination and at his arraignment and plea  all of which was absolutely false!
With respect to such a patently groundless attempt to vacate and set aside a sentence imposed upon a plea of guilty under a record such as presented here  we repeat by reference what was said in the Sharp and Mathues cases, above. On this record, and pursuant to Rule No. 121 (f), (g), (h), (i), (201 Kan. XXXII) the court did not err in denying an evidentiary hearing and in denying relief.
The judgment is affirmed.