Buckles v. People
| Decision Date | 06 March 1967 |
| Docket Number | No. 22043,22043 |
| Citation | 162 Colo. 51,424 P.2d 774 |
| Parties | Raymond D. BUCKLES, Plaintiff in Error, v. The PEOPLE of the State of Colorado, Defendant in Error. |
| Court | Colorado Supreme Court |
Francis R. Salazar, Carl L. Harthun, Denver, for plaintiff in error.
Duke W. Dunbar, Atty. Gen., Frank E. Hickey, Deputy Atty. Gen., John P. Moore, Asst. Atty. Gen., Denver, for defendant in error.
Plaintiff in error, Buckles, is here on writ of error to the District Court in and for the City and County of Denver. The trial court summarily denied his motion, under Colo.R.Crim.P. 35(b), to '* * * Vacate and Set Aside the Judgment and discharge the Defendant or grant a new trial.' See Buckles v. People, 154 Colo. 357, 391 P.2d 873, wherein Buckles' conviction on a charge of receiving stolen property was affirmed.
Colo.R.Crim.P. 35(b) provides that '* * * Unless the motion and the files and record of the case show to the satisfaction of the court that the prisoner is not entitled to relief * * *.' he shall cause notice to be given and grant a hearing. (Emphasis added.)
Buckles relies on two propositions which he asserts entitle him to a reversal of the trial court's order. His first assignment of error challenges a ruling of the trial court in the proceedings which culminated in his conviction. At the conclusion of the People's evidence in that case, Buckles moved for a judgment of acquittal under Colo.R.Crim.P. 29. The trial court denied this motion and that ruling was one of the points raised by Buckles and decided adversely to him by this court in Buckles v. People, supra.
Rule 35(b) was not intended to provide a repetitive review of alleged errors.
The second assignment of error, as set forth in his motion to vacate, states:
'Defendant alleges that this Court effectively denied him due process of law and equal protection under the law by this Court's failure to proceed under the mandate of Rule 44 of the Colorado Rules of Criminal Procedure which requires that a defendant be advised of his right to counsel if he appears in Court without counsel and the failure of this Court to insure this Defendant's right to counsel or obtain an intelligent, conscious and knowledgeable waiver of such right in open Court and in the record and transcript, in direct violation and contravention of the Constitution of the State of Colorado, Article II, Section 16, and the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments of the Constitution of the United States of America.'
Under the state of the record in Buckles v. People, supra, and the facts of which the trial court and this court take judicial notice, it is surprising that this error is alleged. However, because of the allegation of the violation of his constitutional right to counsel, we feel compelled to document the basis for our affirmance of the trial court's ruling on this proposition.
In addition to the constitutional citations appearing in his motion to vacate, Buckles relies upon Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335, 83 S.Ct. 792, 9 L.Ed.2d 799, and Colo.R.Crim.P. 44.
Gideon v. Wainwright, supra, 372 U.S. at page 344, 83 S.Ct. at page 796, construed the accused's right to counsel under the Sixth Amendment to mean that a defendant 'who is too poor to hire a lawyer,' must be provided with one, 'unless the right is competently and intelligently waived (p. 340, 83 S.Ct. p. 794).' (Emphasis added.) Rule 44 in effect says the same thing.
The record in Buckles v. People, supra, shows that on September 7, 1962, one Francis O'Neill, who at that time was a licensed attorney of the bar of this court, entered his appearance as counsel for the defendant Buckles, filed a motion for reduction of bond, appeared for defendant's arraignment, and argued the motion for a reduction of bond. On September 10, 11, 18 and 23, Mr. O'Neill made further appearances in behalf of Buckles in reference to pretrial motions.
The trial began on February 5, 1963, and continued through February 8. Although the clerk's...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Buckles
...and sentence, incidentally, was thereafter twice affirmed by this Court. Buckles v. People, 154 Colo. 357, 391 P.2d 873 and Buckles v. People, Colo., 424 P.2d 774. C.R.S.1963, 39--10--17, which is the statute relied upon by the People in support of their motion to dismiss respondent's petit......
-
People v. Bradley, 23236
...colo., 431 P.2d 768; Brown v. People, 162 Colo. 406, 426 P.2d 764; Lauderdale v. People, 162 Colo. 36, 424 p.2d 373; Buckles v. People, 162 Colo. 51, 424 P.2d 774, where we have heard constitutional issues in 35(b) proceedings and decided them on their merits, although the same issues could......
- Lay v. Lay
-
Brown v. People
...to raise the objection of an illegal search and seizure by proper objection at the trial level is tantamount to a waiver. Buckles v. People , Colo., 424 P.2d 774. The trial court properly denied the motion for relief under Rule The judgment accordingly is affirmed. ...