Court Opinion

ID: 5149668
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-01-02 01:50:36.949373+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:24:58.663474
License: Public Domain

[1] This is an appeal from the denial of post conviction relief in the District Court of Tulsa County, Case No. CRF-69-2159, wherein the trial court, after reviewing the records, made findings of fact and conclusions of law, which findings of fact and conclusions of law are supported by the record and adopted by this Court and appended hereto.
[2] For the reasons therein stated, the trial court's denial of post conviction relief is affirmed, and Petitioners are advised that they have now exhausted all of their state remedies.
[3] SIMMS, J., concurs.
[4] BRETT, J., concurs in result.
 APPENDIX
 IN THE DISTRICT COURT IN AND FOR TULSA COUNTY STATE OF
 OKLAHOMA
The State of Oklahoma |
 Plaintiff, |
 |
 -vs- No. CRF-69-2159
Walter James McMullen |
Earnest Cobbs, Jr., |
 Defendants. |
 |
 ORDER DENYING POST-CONVICTION RELIEF
 This matter comes on for hearing on the joint application of
Walter James McMullen and Earnest Cobbs, Jr., for Post-Conviction
Relief, and the response thereto filed by the State.
 The Court having read said application and response, and having
examined the files in the case and reviewed the transcript of the
proceedings had at the time of sentencing and being fully
informed in the matter,
 Finds:
 1. The crime with which the defendants were charged was
committed about 3:50 a.m. on Saturday, December 27, 1969. They
were brought before a magistrate about 10:00 a.m. the same day
and bail was set for their appearance for Tuesday morning. An
information charging them with Second Degree Burglary AFCF was
filed Monday morning, December 29, 1969. Any delay occasioned in
conducting a preliminary was caused (1) by the defendants
originally appearing before the Court without counsel, and (2)
after they had employed private counsel by his request for a
continuance to prepare his defense.
 2. The Court further finds that the defendants were afforded a
preliminary hearing and were held for trial on the information
filed. That on the day their case was set for jury trial, they
appeared with counsel,
 *Page 464 
waived trial by jury and each for himself
entered a plea of guilty to the charge.
 3. That prior to accepting their waiver of jury trial and their
entry of their pleas of guilty, they were advised of their
constitutional rights by the Court and consulted with their
counsel.
 4. The Court ascertained by questioning each defendant that he
had in fact committed the crime with which he was charged and had
been legally convicted prior thereto of the felonies with which
each was charged in the information. They were further advised of
the minimum and maximum sentence provided by law for the offenses
and that the Court was not bound by any recommendation that might
be made by the prosecution. Each defendant stated to the Court
that he fully understood his constitutional rights, that he was
pleading guilty voluntarily because he was in fact guilty. Each
defendant stated that he was satisfied with the representation
afforded by his counsel and that he had consulted with his
counsel prior to waiving jury trial and entering his plea of
guilty.
 The Court therefore concludes:
 1. The defendants and each of them, being represented by Mr.
James Goodwin, counsel of their choice, and after consultation
with him, voluntarily, knowingly and intelligently waived trial
by jury and plead guilty to the information charging each
defendant with Second Degree Burglary AFCF. That no promises of
any kind or coercion of any nature induced the defendants, or
either of them, to waive trial by jury and to enter their pleas
of guilty.
 2. The Court concludes that their application for
post-conviction relief is frivolous, baseless and wholly without
merit.
 It is therefore ordered and adjudged that the joint application
of Walter James McMullen and Earnest Cobbs, Jr. for
Post-Conviction Relief be and the same hereby is overruled, and
the relief requested be and the same hereby is denied.
 Done in open court this 14th day of December, 1971.
 s/ R.F. Martin
 R.F. MARTIN,
 Associate District Judge.
 *Page 815