Fullmer v. Meacham
| Decision Date | 03 January 1964 |
| Docket Number | No. 3236,3236 |
| Parties | Leland T. FULLMER, Petitioner, v. Lenard F. MEACHAM, Respondent. |
| Court | Wyoming Supreme Court |
Leland T. Fullmer, petitioner, pro se.
Richard T. Anderson, Asst. Atty. Gen., Cheyenne, for respondent.
Before PARKER, C. J., and HARNSBERGER, GRAY and McINTYRE, JJ.
A petition for writ of habeas corpus was filed in this court by Leland T. Fullmer against Lenard F. Meacham, warden of the state penitentiary, alleging that petitioner is unlawfully imprisoned and held in the Wyoming State Penitentiary. The petition recites that a previous application for writ of habeas corpus to District Judge Vernon Bentley, in the District Court of Carbon County, was denied.
Fullmer was committed to the penitentiary from Park County by District Judge J. O. Spangler. The transcript of proceedings before Judge Spangler and applicant's petition reveal that Fullmer was duly charged under § 6-130, W.S.1957, with unlawfully breaking and entering a locked building, the Cody Airport Building, on March 18, 1963. He was represented by a court-appointed attorney, Mr. James P. Castberg, and entered a plea of 'not guilty.'
Subsequently the defendant employed other counsel, Mr. Thomas M. McKinney and Mr. Castberg withdrew from the case. The defendant then came before the court with his new attorney, who indicated he had investigated the facts in the case; and a motion was made by the attorney, on behalf of defendant, to withdraw the plea of 'not guilty' and change the same to 'guilty of the offense charged.'
The court granted the motion and accepted the plea of guilty. Then the judge had Fullmer stand and asked: 'Do you understand that by your plea of guilty to this charge of breaking and entering that you can be sent to the penitentiary for as many as 14 years?' Fullmer answered, 'Yes, sir.'
Thereupon, the following examination of defendant took place:
After the plea of guilty was made by defendant and accepted by the court, the judge permitted defendant's attorney to offer evidence in the way of 'mitigation or extenuation.' The petitioner points to certain excerpts from the testimony offered in mitigation, claiming that in the testimony he made protestations of innocence. By reason of these so-called protestations, he now claims his plea of 'guilty' should not have been accepted.
Two things are overlooked in this argument which render it unconvincing. In the first place, the hearing did not relate to defendant's guilt or innocence. It had to do only with extenuating circumstances. No doubt the court gave consideration to all of the extenuating circumstances presented to it. At any rate, it is noted that the sentence was substantially less than it could have been.
In the second place, any reasonable interpretation of the testimony as a whole would lead to the conclusion that defendant was guilty of the crime charged, as an accessory before the fact and not as a principal who actually entered the building. Indeed, the judge expressed such an opinion from the evidence, saying he believed Fullmer knew what those who broke into the building were doing; and that he aided and assisted them.
Section 6-14, W.S.1957, clearly provides that every person who shall aid or abet in the commission of a felony may be charged and convicted in the same manner as if he were a principal.
Fullmer's protestations amounted to nothing more than statements to the effect he did not think the law should be what it is. For example, the principal protestation quoted in his petition to us is this: He went on to say 'I just think the law shouldn't read like it does.'
The occasion for these statements was that the judge had asked Fullmer once again whether he understood that under his plea of guilty he would probably be...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ostwald v. State
...affirmed one way or another by this court is possible as a practical matter but we do find the following on the books: Fullmer v. Meacham, Wyo.1964, 387 P.2d 1007; Whiteley v. State, Wyo.1966, 418 P.2d 164 (this case was reversed by the Supreme Court of the United States on unrelated ground......
-
Keller v. State
...that you serve your maximum sentence." The State then relies upon Lane v. State, 663 P.2d 175 (Wyo.1983), and Fullmer v. Meacham, 387 P.2d 1007 (Wyo.1964), to explain that the oral pronouncement controls when the written judgment and sentence conflict. In those cases, the court was concerne......
-
Sampsell v. State
...L.Ed.2d 813 (1989)); Krow v. State, 840 P.2d 261, 265 (Wyo.1992); McGraw v. State, 770 P.2d 234, 235 (Wyo. 1989); and Fullmer v. Meacham, 387 P.2d 1007, 1009 (Wyo.1964). Sampsell has appealed from the Judgment and Sentence of the Court, and his stance in the appeal correctly assumes that th......
-
Kane v. Kane
...written judgment is incorrect, the trial judge has a duty to correct it. Lane v. State, Wyo., 663 P.2d 175 (1983), citing Fullmer v. Meacham, Wyo., 387 P.2d 1007 (1964). The length of time between the correction in this instance and the original decree is not as long as that approved in Est......