United States v. Pate, 14766.

Citation343 F.2d 537
Decision Date07 April 1965
Docket NumberNo. 14766.,14766.
PartiesUNITED STATES of America ex rel. Harry BALDRIDGE, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Frank J. PATE, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.
CourtUnited States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (7th Circuit)

Morrie Much, Chicago, Ill., Harry Baldridge, pro se, for petitioner-appellant.

William G. Clark, Atty. Gen., John J. O'Toole, Asst. Atty. Gen., Chicago, Ill., for respondent-appellee, Richard A. Michael, Asst. Atty. Gen., of counsel.

Before HASTINGS, Chief Judge, and SCHNACKENBERG and KILEY, Circuit Judges.

SCHNACKENBERG, Circuit Judge.

Harry Baldridge, petitioner, has appealed from an order of the district court entered June 25, 1964, "denying his motion to reconsider findings on writ of habeas corpus".1

According to a memorandum order of the district court entered February 26, 1964, now before us, petitioner contended in that court that he was denied assistance of counsel when he pleaded guilty to charges of burglary and larceny in an Illinois court on April 22, 1941 and was sentenced to a term of one year to life in the penitentiary.

Neither at the time the orders of February 26 or June 25, 1964 were entered nor when, on October 16, 1963 his petition for habeas corpus was originally denied, was a hearing conducted by the district court affording petitioner an opportunity to introduce his own testimony or other evidence.

In this proceeding, petitioner has charged that he lacked assistance of counsel when he was arraigned on March 28, 1941, and that he had no assistance of counsel, on April 22, 1941, when he entered a plea of guilty and was sentenced for burglary and larceny of property valued at $26.2 Being faced with trial without an attorney, according to petitioner, he had nothing to do but throw himself on the mercy of the court.

Attorney John B. Coppinger, Jr., was appointed at the time of the arraignment to represent petitioner and the clerk was told to write the attorney and inform him of the appointment and that the trial date had been set for April 24, 1941.

Thus, altho petitioner alleges that court-appointed counsel was not present when the plea and sentence were entered on April 22, 1941, it appears from a purported copy of an affidavit by attorney Coppinger, executed on November 12, 1947, that he interviewed petitioner on the morning of April 22, 1941 in the county jail and advised him to plead guilty; and also that he was present in court on April 24, 1941, and petitioner stated that he would plead guilty, whereupon the judge advised petitioner of his rights and he pleaded guilty and was sentenced in the presence of Coppinger; that the latter's memory regarding the facts had been refreshed by reference to his yearbook and diary and by a conference with Lt. Waller of the Alton Police Department and a reference to that department's records and files.

In the district court, by his petition for habeas corpus petitioner charged that attorney Coppinger testified in a 1...

To continue reading

Request your trial
1 cases
  • United States v. Pate, 15812.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit
    • 16 Diciembre 1966
    ...the district court's order "denying the motion to reconsider" the court's dismissal of Baldridge's habeas corpus petition. 343 F.2d 537 (7th Cir. 1965). This court's opinion stated the court was "not satisfied" that an adequate determination had been made in the district court that Baldridg......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT