Brisson v. Warden of Conn. State Prison
| Citation | 25 Conn.Supp. 202,200 A.2d 250 |
| Decision Date | 14 February 1964 |
| Docket Number | No. 136666,136666 |
| Court | Superior Court of Connecticut |
| Parties | Richard P. BRISSON v. WARDEN OF CONNECTICUT STATE PRISON. |
Richard P. Brisson, pro se.
Allyn L. Brown, Jr., State's Atty., for defendant.
The petition filed in this case alleges that the petitioner is illegally imprisoned in the state prison for the reasons set out in his 'Statement of the Case and Petition for the Writ of Habeas Corpus.' To the petition the respondent has filed a return and answer that the petitioner is duly and legally confined pursuant to a mittimus from the Superior Court in New London County. The mittimus discloses that the petitioner was on April 30, 1963, sentenced to an effective term of not less than two and not more than seven years in the state prison on a plea of guilty to two counts of indecedent assault and two counts of showing an obsence movie.
As originally filed, the petition made four claims that the petitioner's constitutional rights had been violated. At the hearing, the fourth ground was withdrawn. It may be noted that this withdrawn claim raised the issue that at the time of sentence the judge did not make a personal inquiry of the accused as to whether he had anything to say on his own behalf. Such a claim is without merit in this jurisdiction. See State v. Hoyt, 47 Conn. 518, 542-546; 5 Wharton, Criminal Law and Procedure § 2181. In any event, it need not now be considered in view of the withdrawal.
Of the remaining grounds claimed, the first is that the petitioner did not have counsel at the bind-over proceedings in the Circuit Court. The second is that two charges were transferred from Middlesex County to New London County and disposed of in New London County under the provisions of § 54-47a of the General Statutes when no 'transfer' was actually made pursuant to the statute and the accused did not consent to the transfer. The third basis for the petition is the claim that the petitioner pleaded guilty to the two Middlesex County charges the same day and immediately upon his arrest, it being the claim of the petitioner that such a speedy arraignment deprived him of his constitutional rights.
The petitioner and the state's attorney were fully heard at the hearing, and the court has examined the very well prepared brief and statement submitted by the petitioner, as well as the transcripts of all proceedings at the bind-over hearing in the Circuit Court and the arraignment and sentencing proceedings in the Superior Court.
Even if there were merit to the three claims advanced by the petitioner or if there were irregularities or technical defects in prior proceedings, these were all waived by the pleas of guilty by the petitioner to the charges for which he was sentenced and for which he is now confined. The plea of guilty waives any defect which is not jurisdictional. It is a confession of guilt in the manner and form as charged in the indictment. An accused by pleading guilty waives all defenses other than that the indictment charges no offense. He also waives the right to trial and the incidents thereof and the constitutional guarantees with respect to the conduct of criminal prosecutions. Also, since the plea of guilty is an admission of the material facts in the indictment, including the facts concerning the situs of the crime, the plea operates to waive any right to be tried in the county where the acts were actually committed, and the judgment cannot be collaterally attacked on that ground. See 4 Wharton, Criminal Law and Procedure § 1901; 5 id. § 2012; 2 Underhill, Criminal Evidence (5th Ed.) § 398; 14 Am.Jur., Criminal Law, § 272; 22 C.J.S. Criminal Law, § 424; see also Grasso v. Frattolillo, 111 Conn. 209, 212, 149 A. 838; Weir v. United States, 92 F.2d 634, 114 A.L.R. 481 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 302 U.S. 761, 58 S.Ct. 368, 82 L.Ed. 590, rehearing denied 302 U.S. 781. 'An accused may waive any matter of form or substance, excepting only what may relate to the jurisdiction of the court.' Sauskelonis v. City of New Britain, 89 Conn. 298, 303, 94 A. 368; State v. Brockhaus, 72 Conn. 109, 117, 43 A. 850.
Habeas corpus cannot be utilized as a substitute for an appeal of the original action or for a writ of error or to review irregularities of procedure or...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hawkins v. Robinson
...v. Cummings, 143 Conn. 624, 628, 124 A.2d 886 (1956); In re Bion, 59 Conn. 372, 386, 20 A. 662 (1890); Brisson v. Warden, 25 Conn.Sup. 202, 205, 200 A.2d 250 (1964), this court may, nonetheless, consider it in this habeas corpus proceeding, cf. Henry v. Mississippi, 379 U.S. 443, 85 S.Ct. 5......
-
Walker v. State
...665.2 Davis v. United States, 347 F.2d 374 (9th Cir. 1965); 21 Am.Jur.2d Criminal Law § 495 (1965); Brisson v. Warden of Connecticut State Prison, 25 Conn.Sup. 202, 200 A.2d 250 (1964); Hilliard v. State, 87 Ga.App. 769, 75 S.E.2d 173 (1953).3 I.C. § 19-4201 and 19-4215; Higheagle v. State,......
-
United States v. Menser
...v. Cummings, 143 Conn. 624, 628, 124 A.2d 886 (1956); In re Bion, 59 Conn. 372, 386, 20 Atl. 662 (1890); Brisson v. Warden, 25 Conn.Sup. 202, 205, 200 A.2d 250 (1964), this court may, nonetheless, consider it in this habeas corpus proceeding, cf. Henry v. Mississippi, 379 U.S. 443, 85 S.Ct.......
-
Allen v. Warden, Community Correctional Center
...the common-law right of allocution has never been recognized in Connecticut. State v. Hoyt, 47 Conn. 518, 542-46; Brisson v. Warden, 25 Conn.Supp. 202, 204, 200 A.2d 250. Nevertheless, if the sentencing judge had allowed the plaintiffs to explain their circumstances after an initial inquiry......