Application of Trevithick, Civ. 66-78.
| Court | United States District Courts. 8th Circuit. United States District Courts. 8th Circuit. District of South Dakota |
| Writing for the Court | NICHOL |
| Citation | 260 F. Supp. 852 |
| Parties | Application of Thomas W. TREVITHICK for a Writ of Habeas Corpus. |
| Decision Date | 08 December 1966 |
| Docket Number | Civ. 66-78. |
260 F. Supp. 852
Application of Thomas W. TREVITHICK for a Writ of Habeas Corpus.
Civ. 66-78.
United States District Court D. South Dakota, S. D.
December 8, 1966.
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.
MEMORANDUM DECISION
NICHOL, Chief Judge.
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...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bramlett v. Peterson, No. 69-117-Civ-J.
...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, No. 70-B-1138.
...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, No. 50561
...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 take their ch......
-
State v. Jensen, No. 554
...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 eligibili......
-
Bramlett v. Peterson, No. 69-117-Civ-J.
...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, No. 70-B-1138.
...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, No. 50561
...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 take their ch......
-
State v. Jensen, No. 554
...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 eligibili......