Title: Guglielmetti v. Turner

State: utah

Issuer: Utah Supreme Court

Document:

496 P.2d 261 (1972) 27 Utah 2d 341 Kjeld Victorio GUGLIELMETTI, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. John W. TURNER, Warden, Utah State Prison, Defendant and Respondent. No. 12600. Supreme Court of Utah. April 19, 1972. Galen Ross, of Mitsunaga & Ross, Salt Lake City, for plaintiff and appellant. Vernon B. Romney, Atty. Gen., David S. Young, Asst. Atty. Gen., Salt Lake City, for defendant and respondent. ELLETT, Justice: This is an appeal from a dismissal of a petition for writ of habeas corpus. The appellant makes seven assignments of error, six of which relate to a claim that at the time of entering a plea of guilty he did not voluntarily and understandingly do so. The seventh assignment indicates that perhaps the judge thought that the statute[1] compelled incarceration. *262 In the case of State v. Barlow, 25 Utah 2d 375, 483 P.2d 236 (1971), this court held that prison was not mandatory and a defendant could always be considered for probation. The trial judge did consider the plaintiff herein (defendant at plea time) for probation and received a presentence report. That report is not before us, but the court knew the defendant was charged with two offenses of selling a narcotic drug, to wit, marijuana, and that one case was dismissed upon a plea of guilty being received on the other. The defendant (appellant herein) and his counsel entered into this arrangement with the district attorney and secured the dismissal of the case wherein it was claimed that some $3000 worth of marijuana had been sold by the defendant. By pleading to the charge which involved a sale for a lesser amount, the defendant could have hoped for a better chance at probation than would have been the case had he been convicted of the two charges. The fact that he was not placed on probation may have been a disappointment to him, but it affords no basis for a claim of lack of understanding of the consequences of the plea which he made. He was represented by one of the foremost attorneys in the practice of criminal law in this state, and when a defendant enters a plea of guilty upon the advice of a competent attorney, the plea is deemed to be intelligently entered.[2] The transcript of the proceedings when the guilty plea was entered is as follows: The appellant here claims that he was not informed of the severity of the penalty. However, his counsel asked him if they had not talked the matter over thoroughly regarding the type of disposition of the matter and the defendant there answered, "Yes." Habeas corpus is a civil proceeding, and the petitioner has a burden of showing unlawful restraint. At the hearing on the instant matter he did not testify but rather relied on the transcript. The trial judge found against him, and we presume that finding to be correct if there is any evidence to support it. Our statute provides that the sentence for all felonies save in capital cases shall be for an indeterminate period of time between certain minimum and maximum limits; however, the amount of time to be served is determined by the board of pardons, which turns prisoners out when the purpose of sentence has been accomplished and as soon as the prisoner demonstrates that he is ready and willing to realize the error of his ways and to indicate a frame of mind that affords hope of success if he is paroled or if his sentence is terminated.[3] This appellant knew full well that a prison sentence was a possibility when he entered his plea of guilty to the charge against him, and it is inconceivable that he was not advised by his lawyer what the consequences of the plea might be. We are satisfied that the trial judge properly refused to release the petitioner on the writ of habeas corpus, and the judgment rendered is affirmed. CALLISTER, C.J., and TUCKETT, HENRIOD and CROCKETT, JJ., concur. [1] Sec. 58-13a-44(3), U.C.A. 1953 (Replacement Vol. 6, 1971 Pocket Supplement). [2] McMann v. Richardson, 397 U.S. 759, 90 S. Ct. 1441, 25 L. Ed. 2d 763 (1970). [3] The writer knows of no case where a prisoner has ever served the maximum sentence in prison save for cases of repeat offenders in short terms, to wit, three-year maximum.