Title: Cox v. State
Citation: 205 Kan. 867, 473 P.2d 106
Docket Number: 46,064
State: Kansas
Issuer: Kansas Supreme Court
Date: July 17, 1970

205 Kan. 867 (1970)
473 P.2d 106
EDDIE DAVID COX, Appellee,
v.
STATE OF KANSAS, Appellant.
No. 46,064

Supreme Court of Kansas.
Opinion filed July 17, 1970.
Edward G. Collister, Jr., Assistant Attorney General, argued the cause, and Kent Frizzell, Attorney General, was with him on the brief for the appellant.
Charles Bogan, of Winn, Bogan and Johnson, of Abilene, argued the cause and was on the brief for the appellee.
The opinion of the court was delivered by
HATCHER, C.:
This is an appeal by the state from a judgment in a K.S.A. 60-1507 proceeding setting aside a conviction of second degree kidnaping and felonious assault because of double jeopardy and a coerced plea of guilty.
This proceeding marks the fifth time the petitioner, Eddie David Cox, has been before the district court and this court in connection with the charge of kidnaping and felonious assault.
The appellee, hereinafter referred to as petitioner, filed the petition now under consideration on October 3, 1969. A hearing was held which was attended by the petitioner and his attorney. Following the hearing the trial court made findings of fact and conclusions of law and entered an order setting aside the conviction. The petitioner was released from custody.
The state has appealed contending generally the trial court erred in concluding that the petitioner was put twice in jeopardy and that his plea of guilty was the result of coercion.
Before considering detailed findings of the trial court and the specific objections made to this court, it will perhaps be helpful if we review the history and facts of the case.
The petitioner was originally charged in three counts  assault with intent to kill, first degree kidnaping and with harm to the victim and robbery in the first degree. A plea of not guilty was entered to each of the counts and trial was commenced on March 14, 1960. Highly summarized, evidence was presented at the trial as follows:
Lyle Koberstein, a complaining witness, testified that on the day he was kidnaped he was a patrolman for the Junction City Police Department. On that date he was directed by a call from the police station to go to Gerald's Jewelry Store where he found Eddie David *869 Cox attempting to cash a check. He and Cox left the jewelry store together for the police station in Koberstein's car. While in transit Cox drew a gun from underneath his coat and pointed it at Koberstein. After driving the car at Cox's direction to a place outside of town, Koberstein was pushed out of the car by Cox. At Cox's direction Koberstein reached to unsnap his gun and tried to unhook his gun to draw it. As that was happening Cox fired a shot which hit Koberstein in the right arm. Another shot was fired which struck the lapel of Koberstein's jacket. Koberstein then escaped by running down a grade into some small trees and shrubbery.
The only testimony offered by Cox in that criminal trial consisted of a statement by an officer of the Junction City Police Department concerning the location of Koberstein's car when it was located at 1:30 o'clock p.m. on October 31, 1959.
At the close of the state's evidence the count charging first degree robbery was dismissed.
The jury returned a verdict finding the petitioner guilty of assault with intent to kill and guilty of kidnaping in the first degree but stated that the kidnaping occurred without harm to the victim.
On appeal to this court (State v. Cox, 188 Kan. 500, 363 P.2d 528) petitioner was granted a new trial because an improper form of verdict was submitted to the jury.
On September 8, 1961, petitioner was again arraigned on counts one and two  assault with intent to kill and first degree kidnaping with harm to the victim. The only objection made at the arraignment was "that the defendant was not properly in court." At the arraignment the petitioner stood mute and the court entered a plea of not guilty.
On September 12, 1961, the petitioner again appeared in court in person and by his attorneys and requested permission to change his plea to guilty. The colloquy which occurred between the trial court, the petitioner and his attorneys will be presented later herein. It will suffice to say at this point that the petitioner was permitted to withdraw the plea of not guilty and entered a plea of guilty of assault with intent to kill and second degree kidnaping. He was sentenced from one to ten years on the assault charge and twenty-five years for kidnaping in the second degree. The sentences were to run concurrently.
Later the petitioner filed a motion to correct his sentence and the sentencing court changed the sentence of twenty-five years *870 to not more than 30 years on the second degree kidnaping conviction. At the hearing on the motion to correct, the state attempted to introduce evidence of prior felony convictions for the purpose of invoking the provisions of the habitual criminal act. The evidence was excluded by the trial court and the ruling was affirmed by this court in State v. Cox, 194 Kan. 120, 397 P.2d 406.
On September 7, 1965, the petitioner initiated his first proceeding under the provisions of K.S.A. 60-1507 raising the issue of double jeopardy. After a full evidentiary hearing the trial court sustained petitioner's contention that he had been twice put in jeopardy and ordered his release from confinement. This court stayed the release order pending the disposition of the case on appeal.
On appeal to this court it was held that the petitioner had not been twice placed in jeopardy and the trial court's order releasing the petitioner was reversed. (See Cox v. State, 197 Kan. 395, 416 P.2d 741.) The basis of this court's decision was that the granting of a new trial places the parties in the same position as if a new trial had not been had and after the granting of a new trial a defendant could be tried on the same information as in the original trial although he had been convicted of a lesser offense. It was further held that the prohibition of double jeopardy under the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States was not applicable to state action by force of the Fourteenth Amendment. The decision followed a long line of decisions pronounced by this court and Palko v. Connecticut, 302 U.S. 319, 82 L. Ed. 288, 58 S. Ct. 149, and related cases.
Following the above decision petitioner sought and failed to obtain relief by way of habeas corpus in the federal courts. (See Cox v. Crouse, 376 F.2d 824.)
On September 21, 1966, the petitioner filed another motion under the provisions of K.S.A. 60-1507 to vacate his sentence on the ground his plea of guilty was coerced. After a full hearing relief was denied and on appeal to this court the judgment was affirmed. It was held that an abuse of remedy existed in the further use by appellant of the provisions of K.S.A. 60-1507. (See Cox v. State, 200 Kan. 198, 434 P.2d 843.)
We now reach the subject of the present appeal. We first note that in the present proceeding and in the proceedings heretofore discussed, the petitioner has at all times been represented by able trial lawyers.
*871 The trial court made full and comprehensive findings of fact. We quote insofar as material here:
..............
..............
..............
..............
We will first consider the state's contention that 
K.S.A. 21-449 defines kidnaping in the first degree and provides for different penalties in case the victim is harmed or unharmed. That part of the statute material here provides:
It appears to us that the statute provides for two distinct offenses and a separate penalty for each.
Kidnaping in the first degree is defined generally in the statute with the additional element of bodily harm to the victim. This offense carries a penalty of death or life imprisonment.
Kidnaping in the first degree is defined generally in the statute without the element of bodily harm to the victim. This offense carries a penalty of not less than twenty years imprisonment.
We must agree with the conclusion of the trial court on this issue.
We now come to the second question  was the petitioner twice placed in jeopardy for the offense of kidnaping with harm to the victim?
The petitioner was first tried for first degree kidnaping and the *873 jury convicted him of kidnaping without harm to the victim which it must be conceded was an acquittal of the greater offense of kidnaping with harm to the victim. After the reversal by this court for a new trial, the petitioner was again arraigned on the same information which included kidnaping with harm to the victim.
In the court below, as he does here, the petitioner rested his case upon the decision in Green v. United States, 355 U.S. 184, 2 L. Ed. 2d 199, 78 S. Ct. 221, 61 A.L.R.2d 1119, where the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that in a federal prosecution the double jeopardy clause of the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States prohibits a second prosecution of a greater offense after the conviction of a lesser offense and the reversal of that conviction, and Benton v. Maryland, 395 U.S. 784, 23 L.ed 2d 707, 89 S. Ct. 2056, where it was held the double jeopardy provision of the Fifth Amendment is applicable to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment. The petitioner then suggests that the ruling in the Benton case should be applied retroactively.
The trial court adopted the petitioner's contention and the state claims error.
Perhaps before we become involved in a discussion of the retroactive effect of the Benton case, we should first determine if the petitioner was ever twice placed in jeopardy for the offense of first degree kidnaping with harm to the victim.
We should first determine at what stage of a proceeding jeopardy attaches as the word "jeopardy" is used under the state and federal laws.
The mere pendency of an indictment, information or complaint does not constitute jeopardy. (See 22 C.J.S., Criminal Law, § 241, p. 640 and United States v. Haupt, 152 F.2d 771, 795.
Under the same section of C.J.S., supra, at page 639, we find the following statement:
A plea of guilty to an indictment or information is jeopardy if *874 entered of record. However, if the accused withdraws a plea of guilty with the consent of the court, he waives his defense of former jeopardy. A mere plea of not guilty to an indictment or information does not amount to putting an accused in jeopardy (22 C.J.S., Criminal Law, § 248, p. 654).
In Hunter v. Wade, 169 F.2d 973, 8 A.L.R.2d 277, affirmed Wade v. Hunter, 336 U.S. 684, 93 L. Ed. 974, 69 S. Ct. 834, reh. den. 337 U. S 921, 93 L ed. 1730, 69 S. Ct. 1152, we find the following statement at page 975:
What has been said appears to be in harmony with our own decisions insofar as they have covered the field. In State v. Stiff, 117 Kan. 243, 234 Pac. 700, we held:
With the general law rather well understood as to when jeopardy attaches we should examine the record, which consists of colloquy between the trial judge, the defendant and counsel, to determine just what did take place in connection with the charge of first degree kidnaping. We quote:
..............
"THE COURT: What do you have to say?
..............
"THE COURT: Do you understand this, Mr. Cox?
"THE DEFENDANT: Yes, sir, I do.
*875 "THE COURT: Do you also enter a plea to this?
"MR. DEAM: Now, that is the second count.
"THE COURT: Yes, that is the second count.
"MR. DEAM: Now have the matter of the first count.
"THE DEFENDANT: Guilty.
"MR. WATERS: Defendant pleads guilty, Your Honor.
..............
"THE DEFENDANT: None.
"MR. WATERS: We have none, Your Honor.
"MR. HORNBAKER: None Your Honor."
It definitely appears that before the petitioner entered his plea of guilty the information was for all intent and purpose amended to eliminate kidnaping in the first degree and therefore he was never placed in jeopardy the second time for the greater offense. True, the amendment was oral but it was made a matter of record and was binding on the state. In 42 C.J.S., Indictments and Informations, § 237, p. 1248, we find the following statement:
The above rule was followed in Silas v. State, 232 Ark. 248, 337 S.W.2d 644, cert. den. 365 U.S. 821, 5 L. Ed. 2d 698, 81 S. Ct. 705.
It necessarily follows that the information having been amended, before the accused pleaded guilty, to include only kidnaping in the second degree, the petitioner was not the second time placed in jeopardy for the greater offense of kidnaping in the first degree either with or without harm to the victim. (K.S.A. 21-449.)
We have remaining the question of whether petitioner's plea of second degree kidnaping was coerced because before his agreement to so plead he was faced with a charge which on conviction carried a penalty of death or life imprisonment.
*876 This same contention was raised in petitioner's second proceeding under K.S.A. 60-1507. The trial court, in answer to the claim that there had been no in-court interrogation of the defendant, quoted from Miller v. Crouse, 346 F.2d 301, 306:
The trial court in the petitioner's second proceeding found:
It may be stated in passing that this court disposed of the last above mentioned K.S.A. 60-1507 proceeding on the basis of abuse of remedy in the further use of K.S.A. 60-1507. (Cox v. State, 200 Kan. 198, 434 P.2d 843.)
In the face of the continued abuse of such process, it is with considerable hesitancy that we again review on the merits the same contention.
We fail to find any coercion influencing the petitioner in making his plea of guilty other than the advice of his able counsel operating for petitioner's best interest. True, he was not advised that he could not be tried again for the offense of first degree kidnaping with harm to the victim. He was not so informed because it was contrary to the pronouncement of the law by this court and the Supreme Court of the United States at the time. However, the petitioner was not alone concerned by the death penalty, he was even more concerned by the prospect of life imprisonment because the chances were greater. We quote in part a letter to petitioner from his attorneys:
..............
One of petitioner's attorneys testified that "he discussed the case considerably with Mr. Cox."
The petitioner stated on request for admission of fact:
Even if the petitioner had been advised that he could not be again tried for first degree kidnaping with harm to the victim, he was still facing life imprisonment from two other sources of the law.
He was subject to life imprisonment if convicted of kidnaping in the second degree without harm to the victim. On such conviction the penalty was not less than twenty years imprisonment. At the time petitioner was sentenced K.S.A. 21-109 was in effect, and provided:
The petitioner had at least two prior convictions. The conviction of felonious assault, about which there was no question, would have carried life imprisonment under the habitual criminal act. (K.S.A. 21-107a.)
Petitioner had ample reason to plead guilty to second degree kidnaping and thus avoid life imprisonment which he was facing under any conviction.
We are forced to conclude that the petitioner did not meet the burden of proof and establish coercion in his plea of guilty by a preponderance of the evidence. (Mann v. State, 200 Kan. 422, 436 P.2d 358.)
The judgment is reversed with instructions to the trial court to reinstate the conviction of the petitioner entered on the 12th day of September, 1961.
APPROVED BY THE COURT.