Garrett v. Knight, 24397
| Decision Date | 01 February 1971 |
| Docket Number | No. 24397,24397 |
| Parties | Spencer C. GARRETT, Chief, Aurora Police Department, R. A. Christoffersen, D. L. Reeths, Charles Alumbaugh, Patrolmen, Aurora Police Department, James T. Ayers, Judge, Aurora Municipal Court, and Guy Van Cleve, Sheriff, Adams County, Plaintiffs in Error, v. William Z. KNIGHT, Defendant in Error. |
| Court | Colorado Supreme Court |
Leland M. Coulter, City Atty., John L. Springer, Asst. City Atty., Aurora, for plaintiffs in error.
Morgan Smith, Public Defender, Adams County, Thomas, M. Van Cleave, Deputy State Public Defender, Denver, for defendant in error.
Error is charged to the District Court of Adams County in releasing defendant in error from custody of the sheriff of Adams County pursuant to habeas corpus proceedings.
Defendant in error, William Z. Knight, a 14-year-old, on April 8, 1969, was charged in the Municipal Court of the City of Aurora with five traffic violations. To the lesser charges he pled guilty. To the more serious charge of reckless driving, however, he pled not guilty. After trial to the court, on April 9, 1969, he was found guilty and sentenced to ninety days in jail. Knight was not represented by counsel at the trial, although he had been advised of his rights in this regard. His parents had been notified of his arrest and the pending charges against him, but did not appear or provide him with counsel. Their reasons for not doing so are not entirely clear from the record presented.
No appeal was taken from the judgment of conviction. Instead, the next day, on April 10, with the assistance of the public defender, habeas corpus proceedings were commenced in the district court. At the conclusion of the hearing on April 14, the writ was made absolute and Knight was released from the mandate of the sentence. He was, however, returned to the custody of the sheriff on other charges against him pending in the Adams County Court and in the Juvenile Court of Denver County.
The basis of the district court's ruling in releasing Knight from custody was that he was denied his constitutional right to counsel and the judgments of conviction were therefore void.
Plaintiffs in error sought to have the habeas corpus proceedings dismissed for the following reasons: first, the remedy of habeas corpus is not available to set aside a conviction upon an alleged violation of the right to counsel guaranteed by the Constitutions of the United States and of Colorado; and, second, there was noncompliance with the procedural requirements of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Moody v. Corsentino
...(Colo.1990) (availability of habeas corpus relief is dependent, in part, on unavailability of other remedies); Garrett v. Knight, 173 Colo. 419, 421, 480 P.2d 569, 570-71 (1971) (habeas corpus not available to petitioner who had an adequate remedy of trial de novo pursuant to an appeal and ......
-
Mulkey v. Sullivan, 86SA118
...corpus relief. Before a defendant can seek a writ of habeas corpus, he must first exhaust his legal remedies. Garrett v. Knight, 173 Colo. 419, 421, 480 P.2d 569, 570 (1971). Mulkey raises the same issue that was presented to this court by the petitioners in Stewart and Martinez, so he had ......
-
Jones v. Williams
...McNamara , we continued down this path and expressly described the warrant requirement as "jurisdictional." See Garrett v. Knight , 173 Colo. 419, 480 P.2d 569, 571 (1971). Knight, a juvenile, was convicted in municipal court without the assistance of counsel and sentenced to ninety days in......
-
Pipkin v. Brittain, 84CA1133
...the order did represent a violation of defendant's rights, he had the adequate remedy of appealing to this court. See Garrett v. Knight, 173 Colo. 419, 480 P.2d 569 (1971). Hence, we hold that an order of one district court concerning presentence confinement credit may not be challenged by ......