Cox v. State of Kansas, No. 71-1667.
| Citation | 456 F.2d 1279 |
| Decision Date | 14 March 1972 |
| Docket Number | No. 71-1667. |
| Parties | Eddie David COX, Petitioner-Appellant, v. STATE OF KANSAS, Respondent-Appellee. |
| Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (10th Circuit) |
Before LEWIS, Chief Judge and McWILLIAMS and BARRETT, Circuit Judges.
SUMMARY DISPOSITION
This is an appeal from dismissal of a state prisoner habeas corpus action in the United States District Court for the District of Kansas. Cox is presently serving a sentence imposed upon his plea of guilty to second degree kidnapping. This is the second time he has questioned his conviction and sentence on that charge in this Court. The background information pertinent to this case is set out in our prior opinion at Cox v. Crouse, 376 F.2d 824 (10th Cir. 1967), cert. denied 389 U.S. 865, 88 S.Ct. 128, 19 L.Ed.2d 136, and will not be repeated here. In that case, as here, Cox alleged that he was twice placed in jeopardy for the same offense. We held that by his plea of guilty he waived any defense of double jeopardy. This same claim is reasserted in the instant case; in support of this repetition, it is urged that the recent case of Benton v. Maryland, 395 U.S. 784, 89 S.Ct. 2056, 23 L.Ed.2d 707 (1969) dictates a different result from that reached in the prior case. However, our previous case simply held that the defense had been waived; no opinion was expressed on either the applicability to the states of the rule proscribing double jeopardy or the presence of double jeopardy as a matter of fact in this case. Accordingly, our prior case is dispositive of the double jeopardy argument.
Cox further alleges that his plea of guilty could not have been a waiver of his double jeopardy defense, because at the time he entered the plea there was no such defense available to a state defendant. Thus, he argues that there was no intelligent waiver of a known right. The short answer to this contention is supplied by Brady v. United States, 397 U.S. 742 at 757, 90 S.Ct. 1463 at 1473, 25 L.Ed.2d 747 (1970), wherein the Court stated that:
". . . a voluntary plea of guilty intelligently made in the light of the then applicable law does not become vulnerable because later judicial decisions indicate that the plea rested on a faulty premise."
Accordingly, the waiver is not invalidated by the recent developments in the area of double jeopardy.
In a similar vein, Cox contends that his guilty plea was coerced and that it is invalid because the state record does not indicate compliance with the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
U.S. v. Broce, s. 83-2558
...by a guilty plea. Caballero v. Hudspeth, 114 F.2d 545 (10th Cir.1940); Cox v. Crouse, 376 F.2d 824 (10th Cir.1967); Cox v. State of Kansas, 456 F.2d 1279 (10th Cir.1972); United States v. Rich, 589 F.2d 1025 (10th Cir.1978); Meyer v. State, 47 Md.App. 679, 425 A.2d 664; 24 A.L.R.4th These c......
-
People v. La Ruffa
.... Page 434. 371 N.Y.S.2d 434. 37 N.Y.2d 58, 332 N.E.2d 312. The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent,. v. Thomas LA RUFFA, also known as Tommy Brooks, Appellant. Court of ...State of Kansas (10th Cir.), 456 F.2d 1279, 1280; Kistner v. United States (8th Cir.), 332 F.2d 978, 980; United ......
-
U.S. v. Rich
...self-incrimination cannot be lightly inferred. See also : 16 Am.Jur.2d, Constitutional Law, § 131. This court, in Cox v. State of Kansas, 456 F.2d 1279 (10th Cir. 1972), held that a defendant could not be held to have waived his constitutional right not to be twice placed in jeopardy for th......
-
People v. Michael
...289, cert. den. 393 U.S. 830, 89 S.Ct. 97, 21 L.Ed.2d 100) and which likewise may be forfeited by a plea of guilty (Cox v. State of Kansas, 10 Cir., 456 F.2d 1279, 1280; Kistner v. United States, 8 Cir., 332 F.2d 978, 980; United States v. Hoyland, 7 Cir., 264 F.2d 346, 351, cert. den. 361 ......