Cummings v. Lainson
| Decision Date | 02 August 1948 |
| Docket Number | 47226. |
| Citation | 33 N.W.2d 395,239 Iowa 1193 |
| Parties | CUMMINGS v. LAINSON, Warden. |
| Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
Rehearing Denied Oct. 22, 1948.
Appeal from District Court, Lee County; J. R. Leary, Judge.
Raymond E. Hanke and James D. Brien, both of Des Moines, for plaintiff-appellant.
Johnson Martin, Johnson & Phelan, of Fort Madison, for defendant-appellee.
Plaintiff, an inmate of the State Penitentiary at Fort Madison filed his petition for a writ of habeas corpus, alleging he is being illegally restrained of his liberty by the defendant Lainson warden of that institution. The writ was denied and plaintiff appeals and here argues that the judgment under which he was committed to the penitentiary for life was void because, (1) the sentencing court did not have jurisdiction to commit plaintiff to the penitentiary at Fort Madison, and, (2) all proceedings in connection therewith failed to grant unto him his constitutional rights, both of the State of Iowa and of the United States of America and his statutory rights under the laws of the State of Iowa.
I. In argument under the second proposition plaintiff asserts 'he was denied the right to a fair and impartial trial because of trickery.' The record shows plaintiff pleaded guilty to the crime of entering a bank with intent to rob, in violation of section 708.9, Code 1946, and was sentenced to the state penitentiary at Fort Madison, Iowa, for life. He was arrested in Rock Island, Illinois, on April 24, 1946. He testified he had been drinking before his arrest and that he was placed in the Rock Island jail about 11 P.M., and the next day he was taken to Fort Madison, Iowa and placed in the Fort Madison jail about 7 o'clock in the evening. The next day, or April 26th, he was taken to the court room in Fort Madison about 10 or 11 o'clock in the morning where he pleaded guilty to the county attorney's information and received the sentence as aforesaid. Plaintiff testified that on the morning of April 26th he overheard a conversation between the county attorney and the sheriff wherein the county attorney told the sheriff that he would get a light sentence and that he would be taken to court and allowed to plead guilty. He stated that a little later he was taken over to the court where he was taken into the judge's chambers and while there the judge signed some papers which were brought to him by the county attorney. He said that while in the judge's chambers he saw a man, whom he later learned was to represent him as attorney, and that he was taken into the court room and he stood up before the judge and when asked how he pleaded, he stated that he guessed he was guilty of something. Whereupon judgment was pronounced and shortly thereafter, and on the same day, he was taken to the penitentiary. He also testified that before he was brought into court the deputy sheriff, Klopfenstein, gave him a pint of whiskey and that he drank it.
State agent Gregson, testifying for defendant, stated that he was assigned to the case of the bank robbery at Denmark, in Lee county the morning it took place on April 23d or 24th; that he interviewed plaintiff in the jail at Rock Island on the afternoon of April 25th; that plaintiff was sober; and that plaintiff gave him a detailed account of his robbery of the bank at Denmark, beginning with his trip from Chicago, the day before the robbery, the caliber of the gun he used, the denomination of the bills he got from the bank, the amount obtained in the robbery and many other details. He stated after the interview plaintiff was taken before a Circuit Judge at Rock Island where he waived extradition and he was then brought to the jail at Fort Madison. Gregson further testified that he saw plaintiff about 9 o'clock the next morning when he and the county attorney went to the sheriff's office and he was present when the county attorney talked to plaintiff in the sheriff's office and told him if he pleaded guilty or was convicted he would receive a life sentence. He stated the county attorney did not at any time say that plaintiff would get a light sentence in the event of a plea of guilty; that he was with the county attorney all morning until after the plaintiff pleaded guilty; that he was present in the court room and heard plaintiff say he was guilty not that 'he guessed he was guilty.' He stated that plaintiff was not intoxicated when he saw him in the Rock Island jail or at any time thereafter. Gregson's testimony was all corroborated by state agent Strand, and deputy sheriff Klopfenstein, who accompanied him on the trip to and from Rock Island. They all said plaintiff was not intoxicated; that they did not smell liquor on his breath; and that his speech was clear and his appearance normal. Deputy Sheriff Klopfenstein denied that he had ever given him any whiskey while he was in jail.
Roy W. Deitchler, a practicing attorney in Fort Madison, testified he was called by someone on the morning of April 26th and told that he had been appointed to represent plaintiff. He did not recall whether it was the court, the bailiff, or the county attorney, who called him and advised him that he had been appointed to represent plaintiff but he went to the jail and interviewed plaintiff. He said plaintiff told him the details of the crime and that he had admitted committing the crime to others. The attorney testified that he told plaintiff the sentence for bank robbery was a mandatory penitentiary sentence for life and he stated: 'When I advised him he could stand trial, he didn't seem to be a bit interested in standing trial * * * he said he wanted to plead guilty.' The attorney said he talked to the judge about the case after his interview with plaintiff and then to the county attorney and that he went to the court room and was there when plaintiff entered his plea of guilty.
The argument for plaintiff is predicated upon section 1 of the 14th Amendment to the Federal Constitution and sections 1, 9, and 10, of Article I of the Iowa Constitution which guarantee 'due process of law' to every person charged with crime and (in section 10, Article I, Iowa Constitution) the right 'to have the assistance of counsel.' But plaintiff's entire argument that due process was not observed or that he was denied the assistance of counsel is based entirely upon his own testimony. The argument ignores the testimony of defendant which was in sharp conflict with plaintiff's testimony on the issues of whether plaintiff was under the influence of liquor, and whether the plaintiff was told he would receive a light sentence in the event he pleaded guilty. The writ of habeas corpus does not invoke the court's equitable powers and the appeal is not de novo, except where the writ is used to determine the question of custody of a minor child. Madsen v. Obermann,237 Iowa 461, 22 N.W.2d 350; Adams v. Stewart, 197 Iowa 490, 197 N.W. 464; 39 C.J.S., Habeas Corpus, § 120d. Upon this review we merely determine whether there is sufficient evidence to support the judgment of the trial court.
The judgment of the trial court recites:
'The court finds that the court passing sentence had jurisdiction of the plaintiff and of the subject matter, which was not obtained by trickery on the part of any law enforcing officer.
'The statements * * * and argument with reference to the actions on the part of the county attorney and other law enforcement officers are not only not substantiated by the record but are definitely contradicted thereby, the statements of the plaintiff in this respect being unworthy of belief, this court being of the opinion that most of the plaintiff's testimony comes as an afterthought on his part and is not a true statement of the actual facts.
'In connection with the plaintiff's complaint that he was not represented by counsel, the court finds that the plaintiff was duly represented by counsel as contemplated by the laws of this State and that he was fully advised of his rights and the consequences...
To continue reading
Request your trial