Title: Tibbett v. Hand
Citation: 185 Kan. 770, 347 P.2d 353
Docket Number: 41,613
State: Kansas
Issuer: Kansas Supreme Court
Date: December 12, 1959

185 Kan. 770 (1959)
347 P.2d 353
GORDON W. TIBBETT, Appellant,
v.
TRACY A. HAND, Warden of the Kansas State Penitentiary, Appellee.
No. 41,613

Supreme Court of Kansas.
Opinion filed December 12, 1959.
*771 Gordon W. Tibbett, appellant, pro se.
J. Richard Foth, Assistant Attorney General, argued the cause, and John Anderson, Jr., Attorney General, was with him on the brief for appellee.
The opinion of the court was delivered by
SCHROEDER, J.:
This is an appeal in a habeas corpus action by the petitioner from an order of the district court of Leavenworth County, Kansas, denying the petitioner's writ.
The appellant is presently confined in the Kansas State Penitentiary pursuant to the order of the district court of Finney County, Kansas, entered on the 20th day of December, 1957, wherein he was sentenced to a term of not more than ten years on each of two counts of second degree forgery. On May 8, 1959, the appellant filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the district court of Leavenworth County, Kansas. The matter was heard on the 20th day of May, 1959, at which time the writ was denied and the appellant remanded to the custody of the Warden of the Kansas State Penitentiary, appellee. Thereafter, appellant perfected this appeal.
The sole question presented is whether the district court of Finney County, which originally tried the appellant, fully complied with the jurisdictional requirements of G.S. 1957 Supp., 62-1304, regarding the appointment of counsel.
On December 17, 1957, the appellant was about to be arraigned on an information in the district court of Finney County, Kansas, charging him with two counts of second degree forgery. The appellant appeared without counsel, and the court appointed Harrison Smith, a member of the Finney County Bar, to represent him. The matter was then continued to December 20, 1957. On this latter date, the appellant appeared before the court with his attorney, waived formal arraignment, and pleaded guilty to each count in the information. He was thereupon sentenced to the penitentiary.
The appellant's sole contention in this proceeding is that the official court reporter did not make and transcribe the notes of the appointment of counsel on the 17th day of December, 1957, or of the arraignment and plea on the 20th day of December, 1957, in the district court of Finney County.
*772 There is attached to the petition of the appellant for the writ of habeas corpus, however, a transcript prepared by the official court reporter showing the appointment of counsel for the appellant in the district court of Finney County. Omitting the caption, it reads:
"Date: December 17, 1957."
The foregoing transcript was certified as true and correct by the official court reporter of the Thirty-Second Judicial District of Kansas over her signature.
In his brief, among other things, the appellant charges that he did tell the court he had preference to an attorney but was denied that preference, and that he "never did plead guilty but was plead guilty by one Harrison Smith, Court appointed attorney who was appointed by the Court over the protests of defendant."
Assuming the charges set forth in the appellant's brief are properly before the court, they are the uncorroborated statements of the appellant. This court is committed to the rule that the unsupported and uncorroborated statements of a petitioner in a habeas corpus proceeding do not sustain the burden of proof or justify the granting of his writ where the judgment rendered is regular on its face and entitled to a presumption of regularity and validity. (Cunningham v. Hoffman, 179 Kan. 609, 611, 296 P.2d 1081; and cases cited therein.)
The journal entry of trial and judgment in the Finney County district court introduced by the respondent appellee, after placing in issue the material allegations of the petition, fully discloses the trial proceedings of the appellant before the district court of Finney County. On the 17th day of December, 1957, the matter came on for hearing and the appellant appeared in person in the custody of the sheriff with no attorney.
The journal entry then reads in part:
The appellant's contention that the official court reporter did not make and transcribe the notes of the appointment of counsel on the 17th day of December, 1957, cannot be sustained. Conceding that the court reporter did not take notes or make a record of the arraignment and plea on the 20th day of December, 1957, and even assuming the record made by the court reporter of the appointment of counsel was insufficient, the appellant has not established grounds for a discharge. Under these facts and circumstances the decision is controlled by Goetz v. Hand, 185 Kan. 788, 347 P.2d 349, decided this date. It was there held:
The judgment of the district court of Leavenworth County denying the appellant's writ of habeas corpus is affirmed.