In re Davis

In re Davis
1944 OK CR 50
150 P.2d 367
78 Okl.Cr. 444
Decided: 07/19/1944
Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals

(Syllabus.)

1. Habeas Corpus-Scope of Inquiry as to Validity of Conviction. The scope of review on habeas corpus is limited to an examination of the jurisdiction of the court whose judgment of conviction is challenged.

2. Trial-Guaranty of Fair and Impartial Trial. Every person charged with a crime, whether guilty or innocent, is entitled to a fair and impartial trial according to the due and orderly

Page 445

course of the law, and it is a duty resting upon the court to see that the guaranty of such a trial, conferred by the laws upon every citizen, shall be upheld and sustained.

3. Habeas Corpus-Relief Where Constitutional Rights Denied. The remedy of habeas corpus is available wherever it is found that the court in which the petitioner was tried had no jurisdiction to try him, or that in its proceedings his constitutional rights were denied.

4. Judgment and Sentence Where Sentences May Run Concurrently. Before the court has jurisdiction to provide that sentences shall run concurrently, the convictions, or pleas of guilty, must have been sustained in both cases before sentence has been pronounced in either.

5. Habeas Corpus-Relief Granted Where Defendant Without Advice of Counsel Was Misled by Officers of Court and Pleaded Guilty Expecting Sentences Would Run Concurrently. Where the undisputed evidence shows that defendant appeared before the trial court without counsel for arraignment upon a charge of escaping from the county jail, and trial judge upon recommendation of the county attorney informed defendant that if he wished to plead guilty to the escape charge that the court had jurisdiction and would provide that the sentence defendant would receive would run concurrently with the sentence which defendant was then serving in the county jail, which representations were impossible to fulfill for the reason the court was without authority of law to provide that said sentences should run concurrently, and where the proof shows that defendant would not have entered his plea of guilty except for the representations of the trial judge, this court, in a habeas corpus proceeding, may inquire into the proceedings and order the defendant discharged from custody, or vacate the judgment and remand the same to the trial court for further proceedings.

6. Same. Record examined, judgment and sentence upon plea of guilty vacated, and cause remanded to the court of common pleas of Oklahoma county, for further proceedings.

Habeas corpus proceeding by Oral Davis to obtain release from confinement in Oklahoma county jail. Judgment in accordance with opinion.

Jack Cecil Wheeler, of Oklahoma City, for petitioner.

George Miskovsky, County Attorney, Oklahoma County, of Oklahoma City, for respondent.

Page 446

JONES, P. J. This is an original proceeding in habeas corpus wherein the petitioner seeks his release from confinement in the Oklahoma county jail, at Oklahoma City

The agreed facts upon which this cause was submitted, briefly stated, are as follows:

On May 16, 1943, petitioner, while drunk and fighting, was arrested at a tavern by certain officers of Oklahoma county, and later charged by information filed in the court of common pleas of Oklahoma county with the crime of obstructing an officer. A plea of guilty was entered to this charge, and the defendant was sentenced to serve one year in the county jail. Several months later, while the defendant was a trusty, he walked off from certain work which he had been assigned to perform outside the jail, and was a fugitive for about three weeks. Upon his re-arrest, he was charged by information filed in the court of common pleas of Oklahoma county with the crime of escape from the county jail. Upon arraignment of the defendant, without counsel, he entered a plea of not guilty. Upon the same day, the public defender of Oklahoma. county came to defendant's cell and informed him that he had been sent by the trial judge to confer with the defendant, and to tell him that if he would enter his plea of guilty to the charge of escaping from the county jail, that the judge would provide that his sentence commence on November 30, 1943, so that it would terminate with the expiration of his sentence of one year previously pronounced against him on the other charge.

That the defendant was taken before the trial judge, and the trial judge informed him that he had probably been treated too harshly when the sentence on the first charge was pronounced against him, and that he, the trial

Page 447

judge, had authority and jurisdiction to provide that a sentence upon a plea of guilty to the escape charge should run concurrently with the original charge, and that if he would plead guilty, he would so provide in the judgment and sentence.

The petitioner, relying upon the representations of the trial judge, entered his plea of guilty to the charge of escaping from the county jail, and the trial judge, in accordance with his representation to the defendant, did provide that the sentence commence on November 30, 1943.

The petitioner has fully completed the service of his sentence of one year, pronounced upon the plea of guilty to the charge of obstructing an officer, and has served approximately 60 days upon the six months sentence pronounced against him upon the escape charge. There the sheriff of Oklahoma county refuses to recognize the order of the court directing that the sentence in the second case run concurrently with the sentence in the first case, and is unlawfully detaining said petitioner.

It is admitted by counsel for petitioner and for the respondent that a misrepresentation of the defendant's rights and of the consequences of his plea of guilty was made by the trial judge at the time the sentence in the second case was pronounced against petitioner.

We think the facts in this proceeding are very similar to the facts in the case of Ex parte Robnett, 69 Okla. Cr. 235, 101 P.2d 645, and the case of Ex parte Pennington, 71 Okla. Cr. 263, 110 P.2d 923.

In the cases of In re Flowers, 71 Okla. Cr. 330, 111 P.2d 509; In re Gable 73 Okla. Cr. 155, 118 P.2d 1035; Ex parte Doll, 73 Okla. Cr. 34, 117 P.2d 547, and other cases cited therein, it is held:

Page 448

"Before the court has jurisdiction to provide that sentences shall run concurrently, the convictions, or pleas of guilty, must have been sustained in both cases before sentence has been pronounced in either."

In Ex parte Robnett, supra, it is stated:

"Where the evidence shows that the county attorney and district judge promised the defendant that if he would plead guilty to a charge then pending against him the judgment and sentence which would be pronounced would run concurrently with a sentence which had theretofore been imposed upon the defendant, but suspended during his good behavior, and which promises were impossible to fulfill by the court for the reason that the court was without authority to provide that said sentences should run concurrently, and where the evidence further shows that the defendant was without the advice of counsel and would not have entered his plea except for the representations made by the trial judge and county attorney, this court on a habeas corpus proceedings may inquire into the proceedings and order the defendant discharged from custody or vacate the judgment and remand the same to the trial court for further proceedings thereon."

In the body of the opinion, it is stated:

"Clearly, if it is the duty of the court to advise the defendant of the consequences of his plea and the court accordingly makes certain promises which cannot lawfully be carried into execution, a plea of guilty thus obtained is contrary to the spirit of the Bill of Rights of our Constitution. The petitioner was young, ignorant, and inexperienced; he had a right to rely upon the representations made to him by the county attorney and concurred in by the trial judge. Under such circumstances it is our opinion that the judgment and sentence pronounced in cause numbered 3596 is null and void, and that the petitioner is unlawfully restrained of his liberty and imprisoned by reason thereof without due process of law."

Page 449

It is our conclusion, based upon the above authorities, that the judgment pronounced against the petitioner in the escape case is void, and the petitioner is unlawfully restrained of his liberty without due process of law. It therefore follows that the judgment should be vacated, and the proceedings remanded to the trial court, where the defendant may be tried on the merits of said escape case.

It is therefore ordered that the judgment and sentence pronounced in case No. 7239 in the court of common pleas of Oklahoma county be and the same is hereby vacated and set aside.