Ex parte Ray

• Decision Date: 20 October 1948
• Docket Number: A-11096.
• Citation: 198 P.2d 756,87 Okla.Crim. 436
• Parties: Ex parte RAY.
• Court: United States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

198 P.2d 756

87 Okla.Crim. 436

Ex parte RAY.

No. A-11096.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

Oct. 20, 1948

Original habeas corpus proceeding by Jack Ray seeking release from confinement in the State Penitentiary.

Writ denied.

Syllabus by the Court.

1. Under the bill of rights, an accused has the right to consult with counsel and to be fully advised as to his rights and as to consequences of his act before entering plea to indictment or information. O.S.1941 Const. art. 2, § 20.

2. A plea of guilty should be entirely voluntary and should be made by one competent to know the consequences thereof, and should not be accepted until after accused has been fully advised by the court of his rights and the consequences of his plea.

3. A person prosecuted for crime may waive constitutional rights to trial by jury, representation by counsel, etc. O.S.1941 Const. art. 2, § 20.

4. Whether one accused of crime has waived his right to the assistance of counsel for his defense must depend in each case upon the particular facts and circumstances surrounding that case, including the background, experience, and conduct of the accused.

5. Habeas corpus is an available remedy to one who has, without having effectively waived his constitutional right to the assistance of counsel, been convicted and sentenced and to whom expiration of time has rendered relief by an application for a new trial or by appeal unavailable.

6. In a felony case, where the defendant is unable to employ counsel and is incapable adequately of making his own defense because of immature youthfulness, ignorance, feeble-mindedness illiteracy, or the like, it is the duty of the court, whether requested or not, to assign counsel for him as a necessary requisite of due process of law.

7. A judgment of conviction of one who did not effectively waive his constitutional right to the assistance of counsel for his defense is void as having been rendered without jurisdiction.

8. The right to relief by habeas corpus may be lost by laches when the petition for habeas corpus is delayed for so many years that the issues of what transpired in the trial court become clouded by time.

9. Where accused youth seventeen years of age charged with the crime of murder is apprehended while serving term of imprisonment in State Reformatory, and is later brought to county where crime was committed and after consulation with his parents and an attorney, pleads guilty to charge of murder and informs court that he desires to waive his right to counsel; the trial court did not lose jurisdiction to pronounce judgment upon the plea of guilty by reason of the failure of the court to appoint counsel to represent the accused at the time of his arraignment.

10. Rule that trial court should assign counsel to represent minor youth upon his arraignment before receiving his plea as a necessary requisite of due process of law does not apply where accused and his parents inform court at time of his arraignment that they have consulted with counsel and have decided not to employ an attorney and do not desire the court to appoint counsel to appear for the accused. Under such circumstances, there was an intelligent waiver of the right of the accused to the appointment of counsel to assist him.

Lee Williams, of Oklahoma City, for petitioner.

Mac Q Williamson, Atty. Gen. and Lewis A. Wallace, Asst. Atty Gen., for respondent.

JONES Judge.

This is an original action commenced by the petitioner, Jack Ray, to secure his release from confinement in the State Penitentiary.

The verified petition alleges that the petitioner entered a plea of guilty in the District Court of Washita County on October 4, 1940, to a charge of murder, and was sentenced to serve a term of life imprisonment in the State Penitentiary; that pursuant to such judgment and sentence, the petitioner was incarcerated in the State Penitentiary, and is now incarcerated in the penitentiary serving said sentence; that at the time of the arraignment and plea of guilty of the accused, he was a minor seventeen years of age; that he was inexperienced in court proceedings and only had a third grade education; that no legal counsel was provided for the accused at the time of his arraignment and plea, and accused was not fully advised of the rights accorded him by the statutes and constitution of the State of Oklahoma, and for that reason his confinement is without due process of law, and he is entitled to his discharge from imprisonment.

At the hearing before this Court, the facts disclosed that the petitioner was born August 16, 1923, at Valley View, Texas and received only a third grade education; that throughout the early boyhood of petitioner, he was in constant association with narcotic peddlers, theives, and murderers; that in addition to the murder of George Goodwin on August 6, 1939, at Cordell, Oklahoma, for which crime he was imprisoned to serve a life term in the penitentiary, and which sentence is the subject of this habeas corpus proceeding, the petitioner had participated in two other murders in addition to other lesser crimes. At the time the defendant was arrested for the commission of the murder of George Goodwin, he was serving a sentence in the State Reformatory at Granite, Oklahoma, for the commission of another crime; that while in the reformatory he confessed to having shot the said George Goodwin, deceased, with a forty-five calibre automatic pistol, and was accordingly returned to Washita County for arraignment and trial on a charge of murder. The accused was arraigned before the magistrate on the 30th day of September, 1940, at which time he waived his right to a preliminary hearing and was ordered held to await trial in the District Court of Washita County. On the same day, an information was filed in the District Court of Washita County, charging the petitioner, Jack Ray, with having committed the crime of murder. Four days later on October 4, 1940, the defendant was arraigned in the District Court of Washita County. Both of his parents were present at the arraignment. The information was read at length by the County Attorney. The District Judge then inquired as to whether the accused had counsel, to which the accused replied that he had none and did not desire counsel as he was guilty and knew what plea he wanted to make. The court then inquired as to the age of the petitioner and upon being informed of his age, inquired as to whether his parents were present. The parents being present in the courtroom, the trial judge discussed the matter of counsel to represent the accused with the parents, and they informed the court that they had thoroughly discussed the case with the defendant and had also consulted an attorney concerning the charge against the accused, and that since the defendant was guilty of the commission of the crime that he did not want an attorney, and that they did not feel that an attorney was necessary. The trial court then informed the accused and his parents that upon a plea of guilty or conviction by a jury of the crime of murder, the punishment fixed by law...