Evans v. State, 5622
| Decision Date | 11 October 1971 |
| Docket Number | No. 5622,5622 |
| Citation | 251 Ark. 151,471 S.W.2d 346 |
| Parties | Harold David EVANS, Appellant, v. STATE of Arkansas, Appellee. |
| Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Harold C. Rains, Jr., Van Buren, for appellant.
Ray Thornton, Atty. Gen., Milton Lueken, Asst. Atty. Gen., Little Rock, for appellee.
This is an appeal from an order denying appellant's Rule 1 petition for postconviction relief from a 21-year sentence based upon a charge of grand larceny. For reversal the appellant contends that: 'The appellant has at all times insisted that he was never advised of all his constitutional rights prior to his entering a plea of guilty.' The thrust of appellant's argument is that since he did not have the advice of counsel when he entered his plea, he misunderstood the effect of his agreed concurrent sentence, i.e., he understood that his 21-year sentence and the 17-year balance of an earlier 21-year sentence would be 'over together' at the end of the 17 years. Therefore, asserts appellant, he should have had the assistance of counsel when he entered his guilty plea. We find no merit in this contention.
At the evidentiary hearing, February 1971, on appellant's postconviction petition he was represented by present court-appointed counsel. Appellant, 24 years of age, testified that in June 1970 he was on furlough from the State Penitentiary where he had completed four years of a 21-year sentence he had received from the Sebastian Circuit Court for armed robbery and larceny. During his furlough he allegedly committed the offenses of grand larceny (3 counts), false imprisonment, and assault with a deadly weapon. In negotiating his plea of guilty with the prosecuting officials, he understood that his single sentence on grand larceny would run concurrently with the balance of the 17 years and that he would receive no additional punishment. In other words, by accepting this concurrent sentence, he would have credit on his new sentence for the 4 years served and his total punishment would not be increased beyond the remaining 17 years. He says he agreed to this after his refusal to accept 22 years for himself and 5 years for a woman codefendant. Upon appellant's advice and counsel, she refused a 5-year sentence and then accepted a 5-year sentence with 4 years suspended. Appellant testified that he was never advised of his right to counsel.
The docket sheet reflects that, ten days after appellant appeared in court and was advised of his rights, he entered his plea of guilty at which time he waived 'all rights.' The then judge testified that it was always his policy to advise defendants of their rights to counsel. The trial judge stated that he definitely advised appellant of his constitutional rights, including his right to counsel and trial by jury, that he offered to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State ex rel. LeBlanc v. Henderson
...v. Commonwealth, Ky., 463 S.W.2d 331 (1971); Smith v. Director, Patuxent Institution, Md.App., 280 A.2d 910 (1971); Evans v. State, Ark., 471 S.W.2d 346 (1971); Grass v. State, Me., 263 A.2d 63 (1970); State v. Elledge, 81 N.M. 18, 462 P.2d 152 (1969); Hall v. State, 45 Ala.App. 252, 228 So......
-
Bell v. State
...of the fact that they were to be provided counsel if they so desired at any time during the proceedings. In Evans v. State, 251 Ark. 151, 471 S.W.2d 346 (1971), the court It is a firmly established rule of law that a defendant can intelligently waive his constitutional right to counsel. (ci......
-
Leak v. Graves, CR77-6
...and intelligently waive either at the pretrial stage or at trial. Burton v. State, 260 Ark. ---, 543 S.W.2d 760 (1976); Evans v. State,251 Ark. 151, 471 S.W.2d 346 (1971); Barger v. State, 249 Ark. 878, 462 S.W.2d 216 (1971); and Slaughter v. State, 240 Ark. 471, 400 S.W.2d 267 Here it clea......