Garrett v. State
| Decision Date | 23 October 1939 |
| Docket Number | 27265. |
| Citation | 22 N.E.2d 981,216 Ind. 52 |
| Parties | GARRETT v. STATE. |
| Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
Appeal from La Grange Circuit Court; Clyde C. Carlin, Judge.
T Ernest Maholm, of Indianapolis, for appellant.
O S. Jackson, Atty. Gen., and Jas. K. Northam, Deputy Atty Gen., for the State.
This is a coram nobis case. The second paragraph of the amended petition, upon which the proceeding was heard, alleged that on September 6, 1934, appellant entered a plea of guilty in the court below to an indictment for murder in the second degree and was sentenced to life imprisonment that at the time of his plea appellant was ignorant of court procedure and without funds to secure the services of an attorney to advise him as to his rights; that prior to his arraignment police authorities had brought great pressure upon him to enter a plea of guilty to avoid his going to the electric chair on a charge of first degree murder; that said officers reminded appellant that colored people were not allowed to live in or about the city of LaGrange, where he was confined, all of which placed him in great fear for his life; that no opportunity was given him prior to arraignment to consult with the attorney appointed by the court to represent him in the cause; that said attorney was wholly without knowledge of the facts and evidence that might have been produced and persuaded appellant to enter a plea of guilty, appellant's will-power being at the time weakened and he being in great fear by reason of the aforementioned statements made to him by said police officers. Appellant concluded by saying that he was not guilty of the charges contained in the indictment and he asked that he be permitted to withdraw his plea of guilty.
The state answered the petition by general denial and there was a trial which resulted in a finding and judgment against appellant. It is assigned that the court erred in denying the petition for writ of error coram nobis and this calls for a consideration of the evidence.
It appears from the record that appellant is a Negro and that he was 31 years of age at the time he was sentenced. He and two other members of his race, one 21 years old and the other 23 were employed by a circus. The killing of the decedent named in the indictment resulted from an attempt to rob him. Appellant is a native of Mississippi and a high school graduate. He spent two years in college and at the time of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hillman v. State
...v. State, 1945, 223 Ind. 308, 60 N.E.2d 742, 158 A.L.R. 1057; Sessler v. State, 1944, 222 Ind. 608, 56 N.E.2d 851; Garrett v. State, 1939, 216 Ind. 52, 22 N.E.2d 981; Power v. State, 1936, 210 Ind. 435, 4 N.E.2d 178; Quinn v. State, 1936, 209 Ind. 316, 198 N.E. Nor will the decision of the ......
-
Bolton v. State, 28033.
...conclusion that the truth was told at the trial and not in the recanting affidavits. This was said in substance in Garrett v. State, 1939, 216 Ind. 52, 22 N.E.2d 981, 982, as follows: ‘Appellant's petition was addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court and the case comes to us wit......
-
State v. Lindsey, 28870
...the credibility of witnesses. That is for the trial court. Abraham v. State, 1950, 228 Ind. 179, 91 N.E.2d 358; Garrett v. State, 1939, 216 Ind. 52, 22 N.E.2d 981; Sessler v. State, 1944, 222 Ind. 608, 609, 56 N.E.2d 851. Appellant contends that appellees failed to prove that they had used ......
-
Bolton v. State
...... appraising the [223 Ind. 314] credibility of the conflicting. testimony but to decide whether the trial judge could. reasonably have reached the conclusion that the truth was. told at the trial and not in the recanting affidavits. This. was said in substance in Garrett v. State, 1939, 216. Ind. 52, 22 N.E.2d 981, 982, as follows: 'Appellant's. petition was addressed to the sound discretion of the trial. court and the case comes to us with the presumption that the. correct result was reached. The burden is upon the appellant. to overthrow that presumption. We ......