Title: State v. Cornelius

State: oregon

Issuer: Oregon Supreme Court

Document:

438 P.2d 1020 (1968)
STATE of Oregon, Respondent,
v.
Charles Edwin CORNELIUS, A.K.A., Charles Edwin Williams, Appellant.

Supreme Court of Oregon, Department 1.
Argued and Submitted March 6, 1968.
Decided March 27, 1968.
Gary D. Babcock, Public Defender, Salem, argued the cause for appellant. With him on the brief was Lawrence A. Aschenbrenner, former Public Defender, Salem; Charles E. Cornelius filed a brief in pro. per.
William N. Wallace, Gold Beach, argued the cause for respondent. On the brief was Robert L. Miller, Dist. Atty., Gold Beach.
*1021 Before PERRY, C.J., and McALLISTER, O'CONNELL, DENECKE and LANGTRY, JJ.
LANGTRY, Justice pro tempore.
Defendant pled guilty and was convicted on January 18, 1966, to a charge by information of "assault while not armed * * by means of force likely to produce great bodily injury," which had been reduced from a prior indictment charging assault with intent to kill.
He was represented by a firm of attorneys appointed by the court. After conviction, and the same day, the district attorney filed an Information of Previous Convictions. Still represented by the appointed attorney, he admitted the previous conviction charged. The court requested a pre-sentence report. On March 8, 1966, defendant sought to withdraw his guilty plea and admission of former conviction, which the court refused. At this hearing he was represented by another member of his appointed firm. The record shows these attorneys to have frequently consulted with defendant. He then was sentenced to 10 years in the state penitentiary.
In this appeal the appointed counsel has withdrawn and he is represented by the public defender, consistent with the requirements of Anders v. State of California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967).
The defendant has filed his own affidavit alleging numerous errors of the trial court, most of which are, on their face, without merit. The assertion in the affidavit that he was confined five and one-half months in a small cell is false as shown by the transcript. Defendant was, by court order for the greater part of one month of the period in question, confined in the Oregon State Hospital for psychiatric evaluation to determine if he was able to aid in his own defense.
The court has reviewed the brief filed by the public defender, has considered the oral arguments, and has read the defendant's letter to this court received after argument of the case. This appeal is controlled by our decision in State v. Jairl, 229 Or. 533, 368 P.2d 323 (1962), where we said:
Defendant's many complaints of error contain nothing about alleged excessiveness of penalty.
The defendant, as noted, on March 8, 1966, sought to withdraw his plea of guilty and admission of prior conviction. Under State v. Burnett, 228 Or. 556, 365 P.2d 1060 (1961), we may review the action of the trial court to determine whether the trial court abused his discretion in refusing withdrawal of the plea and admission. The substance of defendant's complaint is that he was pressured into his plea and admission, and that the court should have given him a full-scale hearing when he sought to withdraw them.
The part of the transcript dealing with the January 18, 1966, proceeding follows. This testimony occurred after the plea at the time when defendant admitted the information of previous convictions.
These quotations from the proceedings indicate that there was no pressure from officials upon defendant. The whole transcript shows he was given the opportunity to confer with counsel as long as he felt necessary at every step of the proceeding.
*1023 The transcript shows these tests were met. There was no abuse of the court's discretion, and a detailed study of the record in the light of defendant's complaints discloses no error.
Judgment is affirmed.