Application of Trevithick
| Citation | 260 F. Supp. 852 |
| Decision Date | 08 December 1966 |
| Docket Number | Civ. 66-78. |
| Parties | Application of Thomas W. TREVITHICK for a Writ of Habeas Corpus. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of South Dakota |
Carleton R. Hoy, of Davenport, Evans, Hurwitz & Smith, Sioux Falls, S. D., for petitioner.
Michael B. Strain, Asst. Atty. Gen., Pierre, S. D., and Jerome B. Lammers, Lake County State's Atty., Madison, S. D., for State of South Dakota.
This is a ruling on an application of Thomas W. Trevithick for a writ of habeas corpus. A hearing was held on October 7, 1966. Petitioner appeared in person, accompanied by his attorney, Carleton R. Hoy. Deputy Warden Joel Jensen appeared for Warden Don R. Erickson, warden of the South Dakota State Penitentiary, and Assistant Attorney General Michael B. Strain appeared for the State of South Dakota, assisted by Jerome B. Lammers. Having heard the testimony of witnesses Jensen and Trevithick and the arguments and authorities cited by counsel for both sides, the Court makes the following findings of fact and conclusions of law:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. The petitioner, Thomas W. Trevithick, is a citizen of the United States, and is presently imprisoned and restrained of his liberty and detained under the color of the authority of the State of South Dakota, in the custody of Don R. Erickson, Warden of the South Dakota State Penitentiary at Sioux Falls, South Dakota, in this district.
2. The claim and authority by virtue of which the petitioner is restrained of his liberty is a Judgment and Sentence of the Circuit Court in and for Lake County, South Dakota, rendered on March 15, 1962.
3. The petitioner was arraigned on a charge of kidnapping on February 26, 1962, without counsel, and the information was read and a copy furnished to him. Petitioner indicated that he did not have a lawyer and that he had the means to employ one. He was informed that he was entitled to an attorney of his choice, that if he did not have the means to pay one the court would appoint one to represent him, that he was entitled to a jury trial and to have witnesses subpoenaed to testify in his behalf. The Court asked him, "In short, you think that you understand your Constitutional rights?" The petitioner answered "Yes." Petitioner indicated that he wished to secure an attorney and that he had written to one. He also stated that he did not need the advice of an attorney to enter a plea of Not Guilty, and he entered a plea of Not Guilty at that time. The date for trial was set at March 5, 1962.
4. On March 2, 1962, petitioner advised the court that he did not want an attorney, that he intended to defend the case himself, and that he would be ready for trial. The court again informed him of the right to an attorney of his choosing.
5. On March 6, 1962, the trial commenced, the petitioner appearing in person and without counsel; on March 7, 1962, the jury returned with a verdict of guilty of kidnapping, from which conviction no appeal was taken.
6. On March 26, 1963, an application for a writ of habeas corpus in the United States District Court, District of South Dakota, Northern Division, was quashed for the reason petitioner had not exhausted his state court remedies. Thomas W. Trevithick v. State of South Dakota and G. Norton Jameson, Warden, South Dakota Penitentiary, Sioux Falls, South Dakota, Civil No. 950 N.D.
7. The petitioner has exhausted his remedies available in the courts of the State of South Dakota by petitioning the Circuit Court in and for Minnehaha County, South Dakota, for a writ of habeas corpus, which was denied on March 25, 1964, and by timely appeal to the Supreme Court of the State of South Dakota, which court on November 18, 1964, affirmed the Judgment of said Circuit Court. Application of Trevithick for a Writ of Habeas Corpus, 131 N.W.2d 440 (1964).
8. Petitioner, at the time of his arraignment, had approximately $100 with which to hire an attorney, and his formal education included grade or elementary school, one year of high school, and several correspondence or I.C.S. courses taken from Bucknell University while in prison.
1. The petitioner must be classified as an indigent at the time of his arraignment because of the small amount of money he possessed with which to retain counsel. He therefore had the right to request counsel be appointed for him, and to be advised of that right. These principles have been recently affirmed in Miranda v. State of Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1965).
2. Once it is determined that there is a right to counsel at a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bramlett v. Peterson
...sub nom. Texas v. Whittington, 391 F.2d 905 (5th Cir. 1968); Cuevas v. Wilson, 264 F.Supp. 65, 72 (N.D. Cal.1966); In re Trevithick, 260 F. Supp. 852, 854 (D.S.D.1966); Sapio v. State, 223 So.2d 759 (3d D.C.A.Fla. 1966); Keur v. State, 160 So.2d 546 (2d D.C.A.Fla.1963). See also Samuel v. U......
-
In re Smith
...E. g., Bramlett v. Peterson, 307 F.Supp. 1311 (M.D.Fla. 1969); Cuevas v. Wilson, 264 F.Supp. 65, 72 (N.D.Cal.1966); In re Trevithick, 260 F.Supp. 852, 853 (D.C.S.D.1966). The Bramlett court, though avoiding a general definition, listed several factors which it thought relevant in determinin......
-
State v. Boudoin
...724; Minor v. United States, 8 Cir., 375 F.2d 170, certiorari denied 389 U.S. 882, 88 S.Ct. 131, 19 L.Ed.2d 177; and Application of Trevithick, D.C., 260 F.Supp. 852, the defendants were without counsel but were held to have intelligently and competently waived right to counsel, choosing to......
-
State v. Jensen, 554
...supra, at 249. One can be indigent even though he is not a pauper. Anaya v. Baker, 427 F.2d 73 (10th Cir. 1970); Application of Trevithick, 260 F.Supp. 852 (D.S.D.1966). In the context of the criminal law, the term 'indigent' has a meaning different from the standards used in determining el......