Court Opinion

ID: 5149846
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-01-02 01:51:19.097363+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:24:59.303085
License: Public Domain

[1] MEMORANDUM OPINION
[2] This is an appeal from the denial of post conviction relief in the District Court of Oklahoma County, Oklahoma, Case Number 19098, wherein the trial court, after reviewing the records, conducted an evidentiary hearing which formed the basis for findings of fact and conclusions of law, which findings of fact and conclusions of law are supported by the record and are adopted by this Court and appended hereto.
[3] For the reasons stated therein, the trial court's denial of post conviction relief is affirmed, and the plaintiff is advised that he has exhausted all his state remedies.
[4] BUSSEY, P.J., concurs.
[5] BRETT, J., concurs in result.
 APPENDIX
 IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF OKLAHOMA COUNTY STATE OF OKLAHOMA
The State of Oklahoma,
 Plaintiff,
 -vs- NO. 19098
Roy Frank Godbey,
 Defendant.
 *Page 460 
 POST-CONVICTION ORDER
 Court records reflect judgment and sentence was pronounced
against this defendant on March 25, 1949, committing him to life
imprisonment for the crime of murder after a jury verdict finding
him guilty as charged and assessing his punishment at
imprisonment for life. Thereafter defendant filed his Application
for Post-Conviction Relief, dated January 8, 1971, upon a form
authorized by the Court of Criminal Appeals. On May 4, 1971,
defendant filed an amendment to his Application.
 Defendant's Application sets forth the following grounds for
post-conviction relief:
 (1) inadequate counsel;
 (2) denial of right to appeal his conviction;
 (3) directed verdict of guilty;
 (4) improper instructions;
 (5) violation of the defendant's rights under the 6th
 and 14th amendments of the U.S. Constitution in
 the following manner:
 a. prejudicial pre-trial publicity;
 b. failure of trial court to order change of venue;
 c. denial of counsel during custodial interrogation
 proceedings;
 d. failure to advise defendant of right to remain
 silent.
 An evidentiary hearing was held on May 7, 1971, upon the
defendant's Application with defendant appearing in person and by
his attorney, John Connolly, and The State of Oklahoma appearing
by the District Attorney, Curtis P. Harris.
FINDINGS OF FACT:
 1. The transcript of the proceedings and the court's
 instructions are not available for inspection.
 2. The defendant was represented by adequate and
 competent counsel.
 3. The defendant knew and was properly advised of his
 right to appeal the conviction.
 4. The trial court did not direct the jury to return
 a verdict of guilty.
 5. There is no evidence that pre-trial publicity
 prejudiced the trial of this defendant.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW:
 1. The procedural guarantees of the Constitution of
 the United States, set forth in Escobedo and Miranda,
 should not be applied retroactively. Johnson v. State
 of New Jersey, 384 U.S. 719, 86 S.Ct. 1772, 16
 L.Ed.2d 882 (1966).
 2. The conviction of this defendant was not obtained
 in violation of the Constitution of the United States
 or the Constitution of the State of Oklahoma.
 It is the Order of this Court that the defendant, Roy Frank
Godbey, is not entitled to post-conviction relief and his
Application is hereby denied. The defendant is notified that this
is a final judgment and may be appealed to the Court of Criminal
Appeals on a petition in error within thirty (30) days from the
entry of this judgment.
 Dated this 4th day of August, 1971.
 (s) Fenton R. Ramey
 FENTON R. RAMEY
 DISTRICT JUDGE