Title: Alexander v. Gladden
Citation: 205 Or. 375, 288 P.2d 219
Docket Number: N/A
State: Oregon
Issuer: Oregon Supreme Court
Date: October 5, 1955

Affirmed October 5, 1955.
*377 Steve Anderson, Salem, argued the cause and filed a brief for appellant.
Wolf D. von Otterstedt, Assistant Attorney General for Oregon argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief was Robert Y. Thornton, Attorney General for Oregon.
Before WARNER, Chief Justice, and TOOZE, ROSSMAN, LUSK, BRAND and LATOURETTE, Justices.
AFFIRMED.
BRAND, J.
The plaintiff, Bernard L. Alexander, filed in the Circuit Court for Marion County a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. The writ, directed to Clarence T. Gladden, Warden of the Oregon State Penitentiary, was issued forthwith and the defendant Gladden filed a return thereto. Demurrers were sustained to the amended traverse and to the second amended traverse. The plaintiff waived time to plead over. The writ *378 was dismissed and the plaintiff was remanded to the custody of the warden. Plaintiff appeals.
1. The petition for the writ was properly omitted from the abstract. The return of the warden was improperly omitted, but was supplied by the supplemental abstract filed by the defendant. The issues are made up by the return, the traverse thereto and the demurrer to the traverse. Huffman v. Alexander, 197 Or 283, 290, 251 P2d 87, 253 P2d 289. The return of the warden sets forth that he has the plaintiff in custody pursuant to a judgment in the Circuit Court of Jefferson County dated 29 January 1953. The journal entry of the judgment was incorporated in the writ. It reads as follows:
The judgment was signed by The Honorable Ralph S. Hamilton, Circuit Judge. The record shows that plaintiff was indicted in Jefferson County. The defendant in his return alleges and the plaintiff admits that the imprisonment has not expired or been terminated in any way. Plaintiff in his traverse affirmatively alleges:
*381 We are at a loss to understand the plaintiff's reference to the Order of July 23, 1953. In truth, the Judgment Order on which the warden relies was dated January 29, 1953. In short, the record shows (1) indictment in Jefferson County for burglary committed in that county; (2) order increasing bail and for the arrest of Alexander made in Jefferson County and signed by Judge Hamilton; (3) arraignment in Jefferson County and plea of "not guilty"; (4) appearance of Alexander in person and by his attorney in Bend, Deschutes County, before Judge Hamilton, at which time he prayed for leave to withdraw his plea of "not guilty" and to plead guilty and be sentenced in Deschutes County; (5) entry of plea of guilty in Deschutes County; (6) sentence to penitentiary by Judge Hamilton in Deschutes County; (7) entry of said judgment in Jefferson County.
2. We take judicial notice that the 18th Judicial District comprises two counties, Deschutes and Jefferson, and that Judge Hamilton is the only regular judge in that district and sits in both counties. The highly technical contention of the plaintiff is based upon the provision of ORS 135.840(2):
Plaintiff contends that the judgment on the plea of guilty pronounced in Deschutes County was not only erroneous, but was void, because the request, though made in open court by the accused and by his attorney, was not in writing, and was made without one day's notice to the District Attorney of Jefferson County. This, he argues, in spite of the fact that judgment on plea of guilty was rendered in Deschutes County before the very same judge who would have heard the case if it had been presented in Jefferson County in the same district and although the District Attorney of Jefferson County was present in court at Bend, Deschutes County, at the time of the sentence. Plaintiff also contends that he was deprived of his constitutional right to trial in the county in which the offense was committed, as provided by Oregon Constitution, Article I, § 11.
We will first take up the constitutional issue and will then consider the effect of the statute.
3. The word "trial" has been used to identify various steps in the judicial process, its meaning being dependent on the statutory context. The word appears in the constitutional guaranty of "public trial by an impartial jury in the county in which the offense shall have been committed." Oregon Constitution, Article I, § 11. If we are to assume that the act of a court in receiving a plea of guilty and pronouncing sentence constitutes a "trial", nevertheless it is clear that the right to require that such a limited form of trial be held in the county where the offense was committed *383 may be waived by the defendant if the waiver be understandingly made after assistance and advice of counsel. The situation here is analogous though not identical to cases of change of venue.
Supporting the text, the following cases are cited in the notes: Kennison v. State, 83 Neb 391, 119 SW 768; Brown v. State, 219 Ind 251, 37 NE2d 73, 137 ALR 679; Watts v. State, 229 Ind 80, 95 NE2d 570; Mahaffey v. Hudspeth, CCA Kan, 128 F2d 940; State ex rel. Ricco v. Biggs, 198 Or 413, 255 P2d 1055; State v. Balles, 24 NM 16, 172 P 196; Lockhart v. Smith, Sheriff, 241 Iowa 970, 43 NW2d 541; and see, Annotations, 137 ALR 686.
4. The plaintiff relies upon an opinion of a former attorney general of this state in support of his contention that Judge Hamilton sitting in Deschutes County was without jurisdiction to receive the plea of guilty or to sentence the plaintiff there. We give earnest consideration to opinions of the attorney general, but we are not bound by them, especially when the present attorney general expresses views contrary to those expressed by his predecessor. Such is the case here. We will consider the opinion cited by the plaintiff.
In November, 1946, the Attorney General, by his assistant, wrote the District Attorney of Grant County, in part, as follows:
It will be observed that the question presented was whether a defendant "may be taken" before the circuit judge in another county. The question submitted did not involve any issue concerning the possibility of waiver of rights by the accused himself. The Attorney General first quoted from 14 Am Jur, Courts, § 163, p 366, where the general proposition is stated that "all questions concerning jurisdiction of a court" must be determined by the constitution, and that a court has no jurisdiction unless authority to perform the contemplated act can be found in the constitution or laws enacted thereunder. The text recognizes certain inherent powers belonging to all courts as exceptions to the rule. The text gave no consideration to the efficacy of waiver and it cannot have been intended to hold that there can be no waiver of rights by a defendant charged with crime. The same treatise has this to say:
The Attorney General next cited Oregon Constitution, Article I, § 11, concerning the right to trial in the county where the offense was committed. We have already seen that this right may be waived. After citing OCLA, § 26-801, which is irrelevant to the issue, he stated that a defendant can not "waive the jurisdiction of the court", apparently meaning that he can *385 not ever validly consent to be sentenced in another county. In attempted support he cites State v. Watson, 50 Or 142, on which plaintiff here also relies. The Attorney General and the plaintiff were probably referring to State v. Walton, 50 Or 142, 91 P 490. In that case the defendant was tried without making any plea and without being required to do so. It was held under the statute that such a plea must be entered and that the fact of the plea must affirmatively appear in the record of the trial. The conviction was reversed.
In the Walton case this court placed strong reliance upon Crain v. United States, 162 US 625, 40 L ed 1097, which did in fact support the strict rule announced in State v. Walton. However, Crain v. United States was expressly overruled by the later case of Garland v. Washington, 232 US 642, 58 L ed 772. In the Garland case the defendant was tried and convicted upon an information. Thereafter the Washington court set aside the judgment and ordered a new trial. The original information was abandoned and a new information was filed. No arraignment or plea was had upon the second information. The defendant was put to trial upon the information in all respects as though he had entered a formal plea of not guilty. He was found guilty of grand larceny. The conviction was affirmed by the State Supreme Court. State v. Garland, 65 Wash 666, 118 P 907. The defendant appealed to the Supreme Court of the United States (Garland v. Washington, 232 US 642, 58 L ed 772). That court said:
The court went on to quote with approval from the dissent in the Crain case, as follows:
The court then said:
*387 This decision of the highest court was rendered in 1914, seven years after the decision of Crain v. United States, and 32 years before the Oregon Attorney General rendered his opinion. Although the Attorney General relied on State v. Walton, supra, which followed the rule of Crain v. United States, he made no reference to Garland v. Washington, supra, nor did he mention State v. Harvey, 117 Or 466, 242 P 440, where both the Crain case and the Garland case were discussed and where the later of the two cases was quoted with approval.
In State v. Harvey, supra, the record failed to show affirmatively that the defendant pleaded to the charge. The Oregon court quoted with approval from the Garland case and cited many cases holding that arraignment and plea may be waived. We said:
In State v. Henderson, 182 Or 147, 199, 184 P2d 392, 186 P2d 519, this court quoted with approval the following from State v. Harvey:
*388 If a defendant, having a constitutional right to be tried in the vicinage can waive any arraignment, and, by reason of waiver be lawfully tried without arraignment or plea, it would seem that he could also waive any right to have the arraignment made and plea received in the county where the charge is filed, and could consent that those steps be taken in open court in another county of the district. And if he could consent to the jurisdiction of the court to receive his plea in such other county, he could equally well consent to the pronouncement of sentence there.
The Attorney General relied upon State v. Cartwright, 10 Or 193 (cited by plaintiff here), where it was held that the presence of the defendant, when tried for a felony, can not be waived, which is an entirely different question from the one before us. In the Cartwright case the court relied on Hopt v. Utah, 110 US 574, also cited by the plaintiff in the pending case. Hopt v. Utah was decided under a state statute expressly providing that "the defendant must be personally present at the trial." The court held that it was not within the power of the accused or his counsel to dispense with the statutory requirement as to his personal presence at the trial. The court held, in substance, that the state was interested in the maintenance of public trial and the right to public trial was not a mere privilege of the defendant. The Hopt case also deals with a problem entirely different from the one presented here.
The opinion of the Attorney General directed attention to Duggan v. Olson, Warden, 146 Neb 248, 19 NW2d 353, and the companion case of Duggan v. O'Grady, 114 F2d 561, both of which are relied upon by the present plaintiff. In the federal case, Duggan applied for a writ of habeas corpus, claiming that his detention *389 was unlawful since the information was filed against him in Perkins County and he was sentenced on plea of guilty by the District Judge sitting in Red Willow County, Nebraska, no change of venue having been applied for. It appeared that the defendant had voluntarily entered his plea in Red Willow County. It was held there was no deprivation of due process of law or of any substantial right. Duggan v. Olson, supra, arose under a statute similar to ORS 135.840. It held that a judge of a district court sitting in chambers within his judicial district could upon written request by the accused receive a plea of guilty and pass sentence thereon, although the information had been filed in Perkins County and the sentence was pronounced in Red Willow County. Construing the statute, the court said that there was no transfer of the case to the District Court for Red Willow County. It remained in the District Court of Perkins County where the record was to be filed. We find that the former Attorney General was correct to this extent; in the absence of a waiver by the accused of his rights the plea of guilty should be received and the sentence imposed in the county in which the criminal offense was committed, but he fell into error when he intimated that the rule requiring the personal presence of the defendant in a felony case at the time and place of sentence was decisive of the question presented to him. In the case at bar the accused was personally present in open court at the time and place of sentence. The question was not whether he could waive his personal presence but whether he could waive his right to have the proceedings at which he was present conducted in a certain county of the district.
5. A defendant waives his constitutional right to be *390 tried by a jury in the county wherein the crime was committed when he moves for a change of venue. This being true, how can we say that he can not waive a lesser right  one which does not involve any change of venue, (Duggan v. Olson, Warden, supra) or any trial by a different jury, but involves only a consent that the proceedings by and before the same officials may be had in another county of the district.
In MacLean et al. v. Harp, 265 Mich 172, 251 NW 358, the plaintiffs commenced an action in Wayne County before Judge Sample, a circuit judge of Washtenaw County. The court entered a decree in Wayne County, and upon violation thereof by the defendants, plaintiffs began contempt proceedings before the same judge at the county seat of Washtenaw County. The court held that under the statute the proceedings should have been brought in Wayne County, but it added:
In Gross' Adm'x v. Couch, 292 Ky 304, 166 SW2d 879, it was held that the parties might agree that a judge might make an order or sign a judgment elsewhere than in the judicial district.
In Jeffreys v. Jeffreys, 213 NC 531, 197 SE 8, it was held that a judge of the Superior Court has no authority to hear a cause or make an order substantially affecting the rights of the parties outside of the county in which the action is pending except by consent. See also, State ex rel. Lea v. Brown, 166 Tenn 669, 64 SW2d 841.
*391 In Atlantic Nat. Bank v. Peregoy-Jenkins Co., 147 NC 293, 61 SE 68, it was held that:
In Godwin v. Monds, 101 NC 354, 7 SE 793, the court said:
The brief of the plaintiff herein is substantially a repetition of the opinion of the former Attorney General. It leaves us unconvinced except to the extent indicated above.
6. Assuming that the receipt of a plea and the pronouncement of sentence constituted a "trial" within the meaning of Oregon Constitution, Article I, § 11, we hold that in view of the express request and waiver by the accused, no constitutional right of the accused was violated when he was sentenced in Deschutes County.
7. In this connection we have considered the provisions of ORS 3.070, et seq., as tending to show a legislative *392 intent that a court may acquire jurisdiction by consent in cases of this kind. The provisions to which reference is made are found in the chapter concerning circuit courts generally. They are not strictly a part of either the civil or criminal code. Among the broad powers conferred we find a provision that "upon stipulation of counsel, he (the judge) may try and determine any issue in equity or in law where a jury has been waived * * * at any place within the state * * *." We think the statute amounts to a legislative recognition that rights of litigants, whether constitutional or statutory, may be waived so far as those rights pertain to judicial proceedings outside of the county where the case is pending.
8, 9. Having disposed of any claim based on the Constitution, we pass to an examination of the provisions of the statute ORS 135.840. That section was enacted at the suggestion of the former Attorney General, contained in the opinion which we have considered. As concerns the right of a court, pursuant to stipulation and waiver, to receive a plea and impose sentence in a county other than the one where the charge was filed, we hold that the statute was a confirmation, not a grant of power, and the enactment was unnecessary. Since we hold that even without any statute the court could have received the plea and imposed sentence in Deschutes County when the accused advisedly requested such action, the question arises as to the purpose and effect of the statutory provision which required that the request be in writing with one day's notice thereof to the District Attorney. If those provisions were for the benefit of the accused, he could and did waive them. But obviously they were not for his benefit. They were inserted for the benefit of the prosecution. The apparent purpose of the requirement *393 for written notice was to protect the state against surprise. In order to forestall fraudulent efforts by habeas corpus or otherwise to upset criminal convictions, the state was entitled to have the request signed by the accused and made a matter of record. It would violate every principle of justice and fair play if an accused person could slip into court in a county other than the one where the charge is pending, and, at his own request alone, change his plea to guilty and receive sentence without any advance notice to the court or clerk; without the files in the case, and without notifying the district attorney having the case in charge. The accused should not be entitled to throw himself on the mercy of the court without giving an opportunity to the prosecution to make a statement. Again the prosecutor had a right, if deemed proper, to present evidence in aggravation of sentence under the provisions of ORS 137.080. These provisions being for the benefit of the prosecution, could in our opinion, be waived by it. They were not intended to deprive the court of jurisdiction which it could exercise by consent in the absence of statute. The requirements for a written request and notice were proper but not jurisdictional.
10, 11. It would be little short of ridiculous to hold that the sentence of the court, rendered in Deschutes County, was void because no written one day notice had been given to the District Attorney of Jefferson County when in fact he was present in the court room in Deschutes County and was participating in the proceedings looking to the sentencing of the accused. If for any reason he was without the files in the case, or if he desired to present evidence in aggravation of punishment, or was unprepared, he could insist upon his right to a one day notice. If on the contrary, the District *394 Attorney was fully prepared, we see no reason why he could not waive the formalities imposed for his protection, if the accused should also waive his right to time after the plea and before sentence under ORS 137.020. In the case at bar the recitals of the judgment show the meticulous care of the court in informing the accused of his rights. The defendant and his counsel both requested the court to permit the accused to withdraw his former plea and plead guilty. The recitals in the judgment concerning the events occurring in open court import absolute verity. Huffman v. Alexander, supra, 197 Or 283, 317, 251 P2d 87, 253 P2d 289. See also, Neal v. Haight, 187 Or 13, 206 P2d 1197. It is therefore conclusively established that the accused acted with aid of counsel and was fully advised of his rights. He waived his constitutional right (if any) to be sentenced in Jefferson County and the District Attorney by necessary implication must be deemed to have waived the writing and one day notice.
12. We would also observe that ORS 135.840(2) by its terms applies only to cases of persons charged with felony. Surely it was not intended to exclude misdemeanants from the right to be sentenced at their own request in a county of the district other than that in which the charge was filed. We think the absence of any provision for so sentencing misdemeanants when they request it was because the power of an accused person to confer jurisdiction of the person by his consent was assumed even in absence of statute.
It would require a stretch of the judicial imagination to believe that defendant suffered any prejudice from the action of the court which he himself requested. We quote the statute:
The defendant was sentenced on 29 January 1953. If there had been any merit to his present claims they were equally meritorious and available at the time of sentence. By appeal he could have raised the questions which are belatedly presented here. We have preferred to consider the case on its merits but have not overlooked the rule set forth in Macomber v. State et al., 181 Or 208, 218, 180 P2d 793, where it was said:
See also, Ex parte Foster, 69 Or 319, 322, 138 P 849; Claypool v. McCauley et al., 131 Or 371, 375, 283 P 751; Huffman v. Alexander, supra, 197 Or 283, 331, 251 P2d 87, 253 P2d 289; Rust v. Pratt, 157 Or 505, 72 P2d 533.
The argument of the plaintiff makes no claim that he was overreached or misled. He does not even intimate that the recitals in the judgment were untrue or that he has suffered any prejudice by reason of the court's action. His complaint is that formalities were omitted at his request which if carried out would have been of no benefit to him.
The judgment of the trial court is affirmed. Plaintiff, if not now in custody of the warden, should be remanded thereto.