Courtney v. State
| Decision Date | 01 July 1959 |
| Docket Number | No. A-12702,A-12702 |
| Citation | 341 P.2d 610,1959 OK CR 76 |
| Parties | Thomas Norman COURTNEY, Plaintiff in Error, v. STATE of Oklahoma, Defendant in Error. Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma |
| Court | United States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma |
Syllabus by the Court.
1. A defendant may waive a preliminary hearing or any constitutional right which is personal to him.
2. Courts indulge every reasonable presumption against a waiver of fundamental constitutional rights, and do not presume acquiescence in their loss.
3. Whether an accused has waived fundamental rights must depend in each case upon the facts and circumstances surrounding that case.
4. Whether it appears an accused has been misled into a waiver of his fundamental constitutional right to have a preliminary examination by an agreement with the county attorney which he refused to keep, such an agreement being made in good faith, it is the duty of the trial court to see that it is carried out.
Appeal from the District Court of Tulsa County; Leslie Webb, Judge.
Plaintiff in error, Thomas Norman Courtney, was convicted of the crime of robbery with firearms, sentenced to confinement in the state penitentiary for a term of ten years, and appeals. Modified to a term of five years and as modified, affirmed.
O. E. Richeson, Henryetta, for plaintiff in error.
Mac Q. Williamson, Atty. Gen., Lewis A. Wallace, Asst. Atty. Gen., for defendant in error.
This is an appeal by transcript perfected by Thomas Norman Courtney, plaintiff in error, defendant below, from a conviction, judgment and sentence rendered against him on June 9, 1958, upon a charge of robbery with firearms. To the charge he pled guilty and was sentenced thereon to a term of ten years in the state penitentiary.
The questions have been raised herein by motion to vacate the judgment and sentence and to modify the same. Briefly, the unrefuted facts are as follows: When the defendant was arraigned on complaint in the Court of Common Pleas, he entered a plea of not guilty, and Mr. Joseph LeDonne, a public defender, was appointed to represent him. The preliminary was set for a date thereafter, but prior thereto, an agreement was entered into by Mr. LeDonne and the county attorney of Tulsa County that if the defendant would waive his preliminary when the matter came on for arraignment on the information in the District Court and plead guilty, the county attorney would recommend the minimum sentence of five years in the state penitentiary. 21 O.S.1951 § 801. To the contrary, when the defendant came on for arraignment before the District Court on a plea of guilty, and for imposition of judgment and sentence, the county attorney said he had had a change of mind and was thinking in terms of twenty to thirty years, indicating he would ask the jury to impose such punishment. The trial court indicated he would have accepted the recommendation of five years. The accused was not notified of the county attorney's change in attitude until June 5, 1958, the day the matter was called for arraignment and trial in the District Court. It appears that other similar agreements with the public defender had always been honored by the county attorney in other cases without failure, until this case. That there was such an agreement is not disputed.
Mr. LeDonne related that he would not have waived the preliminary had it not been for the county attorney's agreement. He further testified he was not ready for trial, having made absolutely no preparation therefor, not even an investigation, because he was relying on the agreement with the county attorney. Thereafter, the matter was discussed with the defendant and it was decided because of the frustrating...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Barber
...fast and loose with an accused's constitutional rights.’ ” Tourtellotte, 88 Wash.2d at 585, 564 P.2d 799 (quoting Courtney v. State, 1959 OK CR 76, 341 P.2d 610, 612). The same deterrent purpose is not present where the parties agree to an illegal sentence by mutual mistake. Moreover, speci......
-
Parham, Application of
...should be imposed or the defendant given an opportunity to plead anew: Roberts v. People, 404 P.2d 848 (Colo.1965); Courtney v. State, Okl.Cr., 341 P.2d 610 (1959); United States v. Graham, 325 F.2d 922 (6th Cir. 1963); State v. Ward, 112 W.Va. 552, 165 S.E. 803, 85 A.L.R. 1175 Apparently s......
-
Com. v. Alvarado
...People v. Chadwick, 33 A.D.2d 687, 306 N.Y.S.2d 182 (1969); People v. Keehner, 28 A.D.2d 695, 281 N.Y.S.2d 128 (1967). Courtney v. State, 341 P.2d 610 (Okl.Cr.App.1959); Harjo v. State, 70 Okl.Cr.App. 369, 106 P.2d 527 (1940). Finally, in at least two instances courts have given a defendant......
-
State v. Brockman
...prosecutorial overreaching in the plea bargaining context. See United States v. Paiva, 294 F.Supp. 742 (D.D.C.1969); Courtney v. State, 341 P.2d 610 (Okla.Crim.1959); cf. People v. Delles, 69 Cal.2d 906, 73 Cal.Rptr. 389, 447 P.2d 629 (1968) (judge's promise to grant probation).4 Of course,......