Title: Mathues v. State
Citation: 204 Kan. 204, 460 P.2d 545
Docket Number: 45,683
State: Kansas
Issuer: Kansas Supreme Court
Date: November 8, 1969

204 Kan. 204 (1969)
460 P.2d 545
ARCHIE MATHUES, Appellant,
v.
STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee.
No. 45,683

Supreme Court of Kansas.
Opinion filed November 8, 1969.
Ward E. Loyd, of Garden City, argued the cause and was on the brief for the appellant.
Richard F. Hayse, Assistant Attorney General, argued the cause, and Kent Frizzell, Attorney General, and John S. Elting, County Attorney, were with him on the brief for the appellee.
The opinion of the court was delivered by
PRICE, C.J.:
Following a full evidentiary hearing in a proceeding brought under K.S.A. 60-1507 petitioner was denied relief. He appeals from that ruling.
Petitioner, Archie Mathues, was charged in two counts with obtaining money under false pretenses as defined by K.S.A. 21-551. The substance of the charges was similar to that in the related case of State v. Paxton, 201 Kan. 353, 440 P.2d 650 (supplemental opinion, 201 Kan. 607), cert. den. 393 U.S. 849, 21 L. Ed. 2d 120, 89 S. Ct. 137.
On November 10, 1966, petitioner appeared before the county court of Lane county with his retained counsel, Harold E. Jones, of Dighton. A preliminary examination was waived, and petitioner was bound over to the district court for trial.
On December 7, 1966, petitioner appeared before the district court. The following proceedings were had:
*205 "APPEARANCES
"MR. JONES: No, he has employed me.
"THE COURT: You have been employed?
"MR. JONES: Yes.
"Are you ready for arraignment?
"DEFENDANT: Yes sir.
"MR. ELTING: That's all right with us.
"MR. ELTING: Yes, on the defendant pleading guilty.
"DEFENDANT: Yes.
"DEFENDANT: Yes, sir.
"DEFENDANT: Guilty.
"THE COURT: You wish to plead guilty?
"DEFENDANT: Yes, sir.
"MR. JONES: Yes, sir.
"THE COURT: You have been privately employed?
"MR. JONES: Yes, sir.
"MR. JONES: I have.
"DEFENDANT: Yes, sir.
"DEFENDANT: Yes, sir.
"DEFENDANT: Yes, sir.
"DEFENDANT: Yes, sir.
"DEFENDANT: No, sir.
"DEFENDANT: No, sir.
"THE COURT: There haven't been any deals made?
"DEFENDANT: No, sir.
"DEFENDANT: Yes, sir.
"DEFENDANT: Yes, sir.
"DEFENDANT: Yes sir.
"MR. JONES: No reason, Your Honor.
"THE COURT: Does the State know of any?
"MR. ELTING: We have no reason.
"MR. JONES: Do you know the exact date?
"MR. JONES: The defendant has nothing further.
"MR. ELTING: The State has nothing further."
(Although in the foregoing proceedings  which are quoted from the Record on Appeal  petitioner's name is shown as "Mathews"  we were advised by counsel at the oral argument of this appeal that the correct spelling of his name is "Mathues"  and that there is no question as to identity.)
On October 18, 1968, petitioner, pro se, filed a motion to vacate the judgment and sentence, alleging inadequate representation by his retained counsel, Mr. Jones. Among other things, the motion charged that Mr. Jones was guilty of a conflict of interest and that he had failed to advise petitioner of his right to appeal.
The court ordered an evidentiary hearing, and appointed Mr. Ward E. Loyd, an attorney of Garden City, to represent petitioner.
The matter came on for hearing on December 19, 1968, with petitioner present in person and by counsel.
The evidence of petitioner consisted solely of his own testimony.
The state's evidence consisted of the testimony of Mr. Jones.
At the conclusion of the hearing the court ruled:
Petitioner has appealed.
The gist of petitioner's argument  although variously stated  is that the representation afforded him by Mr. Jones was, at best  merely perfunctory  and that the court erred in not so finding.
It is unnecessary to detail the testimony of petitioner and Mr. Jones at the evidentiary hearing. The judge at that hearing also was the sentencing judge in 1966 when petitioner entered his plea of guilty, and he simply did not believe petitioner's uncorroborated statements with respect to the alleged inadequate representation by Mr. Jones. The court's findings were fully supported by the record and the testimony of Mr. Jones.
Attacks on counsel have become quite frequent in the past few years. No one denies that the right to counsel means the right to the effective assistance of counsel (Smith v. State, 199 Kan. 293, 429 P.2d 103), and that is what petitioner was found to have received in this case. The record of the proceedings when petitioner entered his plea of guilty is strikingly similar to that in Sharp v. State, 203 Kan. 937, 457 P.2d 14, in which a majority of this court held that the denial of an evidentiary hearing was not erroneous. Here, however, the court did grant an evidentiary hearing!
We do not intend this as criticism of petitioner's present appointed counsel, and what is said is not to be construed as completely foreclosing all inquiry into the facts and circumstances surrounding a plea of guilty. But  under a record such as this  which shows a painstaking effort by the trial court to ascertain whether a plea of guilty was knowingly, understandingly and voluntarily made  all in full compliance with the rule of Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238, 23 L. Ed. 2d 274, 89 S. Ct. 1709 (cited in the Sharp case)  we believe there should be a finality somewhere along the line and that counsel should not be subjected to the harassment which is evident *209 here. Further  as to the contention petitioner was not advised of his right to appeal following his plea of guilty  the question might well be asked  what was there to appeal from?
The record here  including the formal allocution in compliance with K.S.A. 62-1510  speaks for itself. The findings denying relief under K.S.A. 60-1507 are fully supported by the evidence. The appeal is without merit.
The judgment is affirmed.