Title: Webb v. State

State: kansas

Issuer: Kansas Supreme Court

Document:

195 Kan. 728 (1965)
408 P.2d 662
RAYMOND LEE WEBB, Appellant,
v.
STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee.
No. 44,333

Supreme Court of Kansas.
Opinion filed December 11, 1965.
Clifford T. Mueller, of Kansas City, argued the cause, and was on the brief for the appellant.
Frank Menghini, Assistant County Attorney, argued the cause, and Robert C. Londerholm, Attorney General, Leo J. Moroney, County Attorney, and Robert D. Loughbom, Assistant County Attorney, were with him on the brief for the appellee.
The opinion of the court was delivered by
SCHROEDER, J.:
This is a proceeding instituted pursuant to K.S.A. 60-1507 in which the district court of Wyandotte County, Kansas, denied the petitioner's motion for discharge from the Kansas State Penitentiary. Appeal has been duly perfected.
The primary question presented by the petitioner on appeal is whether he knowingly and intentionally entered a plea of guilty to a charge of burglary and larceny upon which he was sentenced. Other points incidental thereto will be summarily treated.
On the 13th day of March, 1964, the petitioner was arrested and charged in the city court of Kansas City, Kansas, with four counts of forgery. Being unable to post bond, the petitioner was committed to the Wyandotte County jail to await preliminary hearing.
On the 18th day of March, 1964, the petitioner was rearrested, and on the following day charged in the city court with three counts *729 of burglary and larceny. Unable to post bond he was recommitted to the Wyandotte County jail to await preliminary hearing on these charges.
The judge of the city court appointed Lawrence Long, an attorney, to represent the petitioner, an indigent, at the preliminary hearing in the forgery case. The judge of the city court also appointed Anthony Russo, an attorney, to represent the petitioner at the preliminary hearing in the case charging him with burglary and larceny.
On the 31st day of March, 1964, the petitioner waived preliminary hearing on the forgery charges and was bound over to the Wyandotte County district court for trial. An information was subsequently filed charging the petitioner with four counts of forgery, and this matter was designated in the district court as Case No. 18,371-CR.
On the 10th day of April, 1964, the petitioner waived preliminary hearing on the burglary and larceny charges and was bound over to the Wyandotte County district court for trial. The county attorney subsequently filed an information charging the petitioner with two counts of burglary and larceny, and this matter was designated in the district court as Case No. 18,375-CR.
On the 1st day of June, 1964, the Hon. Wm. H. McHale, judge of division No. 4 of the district court of Wyandotte County, appointed Anthony Russo, a member of the Wyandotte County bar, to represent the petitioner in both cases.
On the 10th day of June, 1964, the petitioner, Mr. Russo, and the deputy county attorney appeared before Judge McHale, at which time the prosecution dismissed all four counts of forgery in Case No. 18,371-CR, and also dismissed the second count of burglary and larceny in Case No. 18,375-CR. The remaining count of the information in Case No. 18,375-CR charged the petitioner with the theft of a hi-fi record player from the home of Gerald Cartwright, a minister, on the night of March 11, 1964. The court then directed that such remaining count of the information be read aloud to the petitioner. This count charging burglary and larceny was then read in open court to the petitioner, whereupon he entered a plea of guilty to the charge. At this crucial point in the criminal proceedings against the petitioner the transcript of the trial discloses the following:
"DEFENDANT WEBB: I am guilty of the charge.
"THE COURT: You are guilty of the charge?
"DEFENDANT WEBB: Yes, sir.
"DEFENDANT WEBB: Yes, sir.
"THE COURT: No promises and no threats?
"DEFENDANT WEBB: No, sir.
"THE COURT: How old are you?
"DEFENDANT WEBB: I am 29, sir, at the present time.
"THE COURT: 29?
"DEFENDANT WEBB: Yes, sir.
"THE COURT: You live here in Wyandotte County?
"THE COURT: You are hired or appointed?
*731 After the petitioner was committed to the State Pentitentiary at Lansing, Kansas, he wrote a letter to Judge McHale (date not disclosed by the record) requesting a parole. The body of the letter reads:
Thereafter and on the 26th day of October, 1964, the petitioner filed his motion to vacate and set aside the judgment and sentence pursuant to K.S.A. 60-1507. The court appointed Clifford T. Mueller, a member of the Wyandotte County bar to represent the petitioner, an indigent, in the hearing on this motion. The motion was argued to Judge McHale in the district court of Wyandotte County on the 20th day of November, 1964, and was overruled. The petitioner was not present in court at the time the motion was presented and argued.
Thereupon appeal was duly perfected to this court by the petitioner through his court-appointed counsel, Mr. Mueller, who has continued to represent him on appeal in this court.
The petitioner's application for discharge in this 1507 proceeding is on a form provided by the district court of Wyandotte County and was prepared by the petitioner himself. The grounds upon which he relies for discharge are rather vaguely stated, but, in general, charge that he was not adequately represented by counsel in the criminal proceedings. He contends that he did not waive preliminary hearing in Case No. 18,375-CR, and did not have any knowledge that the hearing was to be waived.
In a rather lengthy argument to the trial court counsel for the petitioner made various statements and charges on the petitioner's behalf. The primary contention of the petitioner was summarized by his attorney to the lower court as follows:
The petitioner contends the offense to which he pleaded guilty *732 did not occur in the nighttime, as alleged in the complaint and information, and that if he had appreciated the nature and purpose of the preliminary hearing, he would have presented the testimony of various witnesses to establish that he was elsewhere at the time the alleged offense was committed, thereby exonerating himself at that stage of the proceedings.
The petitioner contends he was told by Mr. Russo, his court-appointed counsel, that the state intended to dismiss the complaint involving the burglary and larceny charges and proceed only with the prosecution of the case involving the forgery charges. He asserts that it was on the basis of this erroneous information that he agreed with Mr. Russo's suggestion that the preliminary hearing be waived.
The petitioner contends that Mr. Russo's failure to advise him that he would be entitled to present evidence at the preliminary hearing, when coupled with the fact that he was misinformed as to what charges were to be dismissed, created a situation wherein the petitioner was denied an opportunity to have effective legal advice before deciding what course of action to pursue at this important stage of the proceedings.
The petitioner contends that even though count I of the information in Case No. 18,375-CR, charging him with burglary and larceny, was read to him immediately prior to the time he entered his plea of guilty, he remained unaware of the fact that he was admitting the commission of the offenses of burglary and larceny, rather than the forgery charges to which he intended to plead guilty. The petitioner maintains that it was not until he had been committed to the penitentiary and had an opportunity to study a copy of the journal entry of judgment that he realized a mistake had been made.
Accordingly, the petitioner contends that his failure to have a full appreciation and understanding of the nature of the crime to which he was asked to enter a plea  whether such lack of understanding resulted from a breakdown in communications between his court-appointed attorney and himself, or from his own limitations  caused him to enter a plea that was not knowingly and understandingly made. By reason thereof the petitioner argues the judgment and sentence which was imposed upon him should be vacated and set aside.
The trial court after having examined the pleadings and records on file in cases numbered 18,371-CR and 18,375-CR, and after hearing the argument and statement of counsel for both the petitioner and respondent, found as follows:
It has been recognized that a plea of guilty, in order to be valid, must be freely, knowlingly and understandingly made. Otherwise it is a violation of the constitutional guarantee of due process and the judgment is void. (Miller v. Hudspeth, 164 Kan. 688, 705, 192 P.2d 147, and authorities cited therein.)
*734 It is to be noted the petitioner was not present at the hearing in the district court on his 1507 motion. It must be conceded that Rule No. 121 (h) of the Supreme Court (194 Kan. XXVIII) is to be applied in proceedings conducted pursuant to K.S.A. 60-1507. This rule relates to the presence of the prisoner and provides, in substance, that he should be produced at the hearing on a motion attacking a sentence where there are substantial issues of fact as to events in which he participated. The sentencing court, however, is given discretion to ascertain whether the claim is substantial before granting a full evidentiary hearing and requiring the prisoner to be present.
The question posed, therefore, is whether upon the record presented to the trial court the claim of the petitioner is substantial.
For the reasons hereafter assigned, we think the trial court was well within its power of discretion when it determined the petitioner's claim was not substantial and found that it was unnecessary to have the petitioner present or grant an evidentiary hearing. In fact, we think, based upon the record presented, the petitioner's claim has no legal merit.
It is an established rule in proceedings of this nature that the burden of proof is never sustained by the unsupported and uncorroborated statements of the petitioner. (State v. Richardson, 194 Kan. 471, 399 P.2d 799, and Supreme Court Rule No. 121 [g].)
Nowhere in the petitioner's motion is any witness named nor is reference made to any other evidence by which the petitioner could substantiate his claim. Furthermore, counsel appointed to represent the petitioner in this proceeding at no time suggested that any witness, other than the petitioner, could substantiate his claim. In fact, counsel argued the truth of the petitioner's contentions must necessarily be determined in large part from his own statements, since he alone knows what was in his mind at the time he entered his plea of guilty.
The transcript of the record taken in the criminal proceeding on June 1, 1964, discloses that the trial judge asked the petitioner specifically about Case No. 18,371 in which Mr. Long was appointed to represent him at the preliminary hearing, and the trial judge referred to it as being the forgery charge, to which the petitioner answered "Yes, sir."
On June 10, 1964, the petitioner and his attorney appeared in the district court, at which time the county attorney asked to dismiss all four counts in Case No. 18,371-CR.
*735 Count II in Case No. 18,375 was also dismissed, and the court directed the reading of count I of the information in Case No. 18,375-CR to the petitioner and his attorney. The information was read aloud. The information refers to the "nighttime," "burglariously," "dwelling house," "steal, take and carry away," "feloniously and burglariously breaking, opening and entering," "steal, take and carry away," "R.C.A. Victor Hi Fi." Nothing to suggest forgery is mentioned in the information.
The petitioner stated "I am guilty of the charge." He further admitted several times that he was guilty and advanced no reason why sentence should not be imposed. The petitioner discussed possession of the record player, acknowledging his guilt, and the court advised him he had entered a plea of guilty to the charge of burglary and larceny.
At no time during the plea or during the sentencing was any statement made that could confuse the issue concerning the crime charged.
The petitioner's plea of guilty is a confession of guilt of the crime charged and of every fact alleged in the charge, and legally speaking, it is the most formal and binding confession it is possible for a defendant in a criminal case to enter. (State v. Downs, 185 Kan. 168, 341 P.2d 957.)
The record further discloses that the petitioner applied for a parole shortly after he was sentenced. Again, after he was in the penitentiary, the petitioner wrote a letter requesting further parole consideration, wherein he again admitted the offense to which he pleaded guilty, and further recognized the validity of the judgment and sentence. (See, State v. Mooneyham, 192 Kan. 620, 390 P.2d 215, cert. den. 377 U.S. 958, 12 L. Ed. 2d 502, 84 S. Ct. 1640; State v. Irish, 193 Kan. 533, 393 P.2d 1015; State v. Robertson, 193 Kan. 668, 396 P.2d 323; and State v. Baier, 194 Kan. 517, 399 P.2d 559.)
Other points raised by the petitioner in his statement of points have either been abandoned or his counsel has virtually conceded them to be without merit.
In conclusion we hold all of the findings of the trial court are supported by the matters contained in the files and records that were before it.
The judgment of the lower court is affirmed.