Davies v. State
| Decision Date | 05 January 1970 |
| Docket Number | No. 18999,18999 |
| Citation | 171 S.E.2d 720,253 S.C. 501 |
| Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | Richard DAVIES, Appellant, v. STATE of South Carolina and William D. Leeke, Director, South CarolinaDepartment of Corrections, Respondents. |
Charles W. Knowlton, Charles E. Baker, Columbia, for appellant.
Atty. Gen. Daniel R. McLeod, Asst. Attys. Gen. Robert H. Hood and Emmet H. Clair, Columbia, for respondent.
Appellant, Richard Davies, without counsel, pled guilty in the Court of General Sessions for Colleton County, on June 14, 1965, to having committed the crimes of armed robbery, larceny and housebreaking. He received a sentence of eighteen years for armed robbery, and additional concurrent sentences of five years on each of the charges of housebreaking and larceny, which he is now serving in the South Carolina Department of Corrections. Under date of May 27, 1968, appellant filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus seeking to have his guilty plea set aside on the grounds that it was coerced and he was denied counsel at the time he entered it. This petition was dismissed by an order of the lower court after a full hearing, from which this appeal is prosecuted.
The parties agree that the exceptions present two basic questions for determination, to-wit:
(1) Did appellant waive his constitutional right to the assistance of counsel at the time he entered his guilty plea; and
(2) Was his plea of guilty made voluntarily with a proper understanding of what the plea meant and the consequences thereof?
The lower court found as a fact that appellant did waive his right to counsel and entered his plea voluntarily and understandingly. The record abundantly sustains such findings.
The crimes to which appellant plead guilty were committed in Colleton County, South Carolina, on November 14, 1964. Appellant was arrested in Dallas, Texas, about November 25, 1964. He was subsequently interrogated in Texas by a South Carolina officer, thereafter waived extradition, was brought back to South Carolina, and placed in the Colleton County jail. An indictment was returned by the grand jury at the April 1965 term of the Court of General Sessions for Colleton County, jointly charging appellant and two codefendants with the commission of the crimes.
Appellant and his codefendants were brought before the Court on May 27, 1965 for the purpose of arranging for the appointment of counsel for them. They were informed of their right to counsel and their right to have counsel furnished them free of charge if they were indigent. All, including appellant, informed the court that they had funds with which to employ counsel and did not desire that the court appoint counsel for them. They were informed at that time that their case would be called at the next term of court which commenced on June 14, 1965. The Sheriff, in whose custody they were detained, was instructed by the court to permit them full opportunity to communicate with attorneys if they so desired.
It appears that shortly after their appearance before the court on May 27, 1965, appellant and his codefendants were removed from the Colleton County jail to the State Penitentiary in Columbia for safekeeping, and were brought before the court again on June 14, 1965 for trial. They had been in custody continuously since their arrest. Upon their arraignment, they were asked if they had procured counsel and replied that they had not. All stated to the court that, although they were told that they would have ample opportunity to retain counsel, such had been denied to them. They requested additional time in which to employ an attorney. The court deferred a ruling on the request for additional time, instructed the officers to forthwith afford the defendants every reasonable opportunity to get in touch with counsel, and announced to the defendants that the court would tell them later what disposition would be made of their request.
Following a recess in the court proceedings, during which appellant was offered effective assistance to procure an attorney, he and his codefendants were returned to the courtroom and the Solicitor announced that all defendants had advised him of a desire to enter a plea of guilty. The court...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Flood v. State, 56269
...Commonwealth v. Godfrey, 434 Pa. 532, 254 A.2d 923; Rhode Island: Flint v. Sharkey, R.I., 268 A.2d 714; South Carolina: Davies v. State, 253 S.C. 501, 171 S.E.2d 720; South Dakota: Nachtigall v. Erickson, S.D., 178 N.W.2d 198; Virginia: Bridgers v. Commonwealth, 211 Va. 370, 177 S.E.2d 526;......
-
Graham v. Graham, 18998
... ... However, he did state the most he could possibly pay was $150.00 per month ... It was testified that during the marriage of the parties the respondent ... ...
-
Baxley v. State, 19145
...twelve years after the plea here involved and is not retroactive. Such court records were not required in 1957. See Davies v. State, 253 S.C. 501, 507, 171 S.E.2d 720 (1970); Hughey v. State, S.C., 177 S.E.2d 553 At the hearing in the lower court, for reasons not appearing in the record, th......
-
Hughey v. State, 19125
...by appellant. Boykin was decided on June 2, 1969, subsequent to the plea in this case, and is not retroactive. Davies v. State, 253 S.C. 501, 507, 171 S.E.2d 720 (1970). Despite the absence in the record of a detailed inquiry by the trial judge relative to the questions of the voluntary, in......