Gault v. Burford, 3829.
| Decision Date | 28 March 1949 |
| Docket Number | No. 3829.,3829. |
| Citation | 173 F.2d 813 |
| Parties | GAULT et al. v. BURFORD, Warden. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Tenth Circuit |
Mike Gault and Allen Gault, pro se.
No appearance for appellee.
Before PHILLIPS, Chief Judge, MURRAH, Circuit Judge, and SAVAGE, District Judge.
After exhausting their state remedy by petitioning the Oklahoma Criminal Court of Appeals for a writ of habeas corpus, and the Supreme Court of the United States for a review of the State Court's denial of the writ, Ex parte Gault, Okl.Cr.App., 146 P.2d 133, certiorari denied 325 U.S. 873, 65 S.Ct. 1414, 89 L.Ed. 1991, petitioners applied for a writ of habeas corpus in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Oklahoma, seeking release from custody of the Warden of the Oklahoma State Penitentiary. The trial court granted the writ, conducted a hearing, denied discharge, and this appeal followed.
According to the record here, on July 2, 1938, petitioners appeared before the District Court of Custer County, Oklahoma, entered pleas of guilty to a charge of burglary and were sentenced to a term of seven years. Petitioner Mike Gault also entered a plea of guilty to a charge of assault with intent to kill and was given a ten year sentence to run concurrently with the seven year sentence on the burglary charge. On the same date petitioners were taken to Beckham County, Oklahoma, arraigned before the District Court and entered pleas of guilty to a charge of robbery with firearms, for which Mike Gault received a sentence of thirty years and Allen Gault a sentence of thirty-three years.
In 1943 petitioners sought release from service of their state sentences by filing a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the Oklahoma Criminal Court of Appeals. As the basis for the writ, it was contended that they were required to plead to the charge of robbery with firearms without benefit of counsel; that they were denied a preliminary hearing on the charges in Beckham County; that they were given no time after arraignment in which to plead, or after their pleas were entered, all in violation of the Bill of Rights of the Oklahoma Constitution, Sec. 20, Article 2, Okl.St.Ann.Const. An order to show cause was issued; petitioners were taken before the court and testified at length concerning the facts surrounding their arrest and pleas of guilty. The State court found from petitioners' own testimony that court procedure was not a new and novel experience for them at the time they entered their pleas of guilty, each being a "hardened criminal"; that before their pleas were entered they "bargained for some time with the County attorneys of Custer and Beckham Counties in trying to secure, as they testified, `the best deal possible'". The court also referred to an affidavit of the sentencing judge in Beckham County to the effect that he advised petitioners of their statutory and constitutional rights; that such rights were waived, and each expressed a desire to enter a plea of guilty and be sentenced instanter. Based upon these findings, the Criminal Court of Appeals held that petitioners had intelligently waived their rights, and that such waiver had not deprived the sentencing courts of jurisdiction to pronounce judgment on their pleas of guilty. See Ex parte Gault, Okl.Cr.App., 146 P.2d 133.
In this application, petitioners allege that they are now being held under sentences imposed by the Oklahoma courts without any "semblance of a fair trial", and invoke the protective cloak of the 14th Amendment. Admittedly, the contentions are substantially the same as were presented to the Criminal Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court of the United States in the petition for certiorari, with the exception that petitioners now further allege that one of the state officers told them their sister and her husband would be committed to the State Penitentiary for a crime they did not commit, unless petitioners entered pleas of guilty — that "if it had not been for what the officer told them", they would not have pleaded guilty.
Testifying in support of the allegation that their pleas of guilty were induced by misrepresentations made by a state officer, petitioner Allen Gault reiterated the allegation and reluctantly named the state officer, alleged to have made the statement. He then stated that his testimony with respect to the other allegations of their petition would be the same as the testimony in support of the application for the writ in the Criminal Court of Appeals. Petitioner Mike Gault stated that his testimony would be the same as his co-petitioner's. The records of the proceedings in the Criminal ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. Robinson
...did not see fit to review the findings of those courts. This court must and does give proper weight to those findings. Gault v. Burford, 10 Cir., 173 F.2d 813 and cases cited therein. There is no suggestion that furthur evidence could be produced at this time. Unfortunately Judge Edwards an......
-
Maxwell v. Hudspeth
...Gresjean v. American Press Co., 297 U.S. 233, 243, 56 S.Ct. 444, 80 L.Ed. 660. 7 As to the effect of that adjudication, see Gault v. Burford, 10 Cir., 173 F.2d 813. 8 A petition for certiorari was denied by the Supreme Court, 328 U.S. 841, 66 S.Ct. 1011, 90 L.Ed. ...
-
McGarty v. O'BRIEN
...petition for the Great Writ in determining whether the petitioner has been granted due process in the State courts. Gault v. Burford, 10 Cir., 173 F.2d 813; Stonebreaker v. Smyth, 4 Cir., 163 F.2d Where the Supreme Court denies certiorari after a decision by a State court on the merits of p......
-
Paul v. Waters
...that he did so in this instance. Further the affiant sayeth not." (Original Affidavit given in August, 1952.) 11 In Gault v. Burford, 10 Cir., 1949, 173 F.2d 813, 814, Judge Murrah said: "The Oklahoma court of last resort having fully considered and adjudicated petitioners' contentions with......