Hawkins v. People
| Decision Date | 14 March 1955 |
| Docket Number | No. 17566,17566 |
| Citation | 131 Colo. 281,281 P.2d 156 |
| Parties | Ray HAWKINS, Plaintiff in Error, v. The PEOPLE of the State of Colorado, Defendant in Error. |
| Court | Colorado Supreme Court |
John J. Gibbons, Ownbey & Greinetz, Denver, for plaintiff in error.
Duke, W. Dunbar, Atty. Gen., Frank A. Wachob, Deputy Atty. Gen., Norman H. Comstock, Asst. Atty. Gen., for defendant in error.
Plaintiff in error, to whom we will herein refer as defendant, on June 7, 1954, entered a plea of guilty to an information in which he was charged with a crime against nature. June 11, 1954, the court pronounced judgment upon said plea and sentenced him to serve a term of not less than two, nor more than six, years in the state penitentiary.
August 11, 1954, defendant, appearing by counsel other than the one who represented him at the time his plea of guilty was entered, filed a 'Motion to Vacate Sentence, Strike Testimony, Vacate Proceedings, Strike Plea of Guilty and Enter Not Guilty Plea.' August 30, a supplemental or amended motion of the same nature was filed, in which additional reasons were set forth as grounds for granting the relief sought. The plea of guilty was entered before the Honorable Claude C. Coffin who also sentenced the defendant to prison. Between the date of said judgment and the filing by defendant of said motion, Judge Coffin died, and the Honorable William E. Buck heard defendant's motions, which were denied August 30, 1954. The case is before our Court on writ of error directed to the order denying the motions to vacate the plea of guilty.
Counsel for defendant contend that the judgment and sentence should be reversed because the court erred in three particulars, as follows:
(1) Error was committed by the trial court by 'determining that the defendant could not be released on probation where such determination was based solely on the fact that probation should not be granted in cases involving crime against nature and without having the requisite probation investigation and report.'
(2) Error was committed in that it is mandatory under Article 19, chapter 39, '53 C.R.S., 'that the trial court have the defendant examined by a psychiatrist.'
(3) The trial court erred in entering the judgment for the reason that defendant's plea of guilty was not his free and voluntary act, and the evidence 'offered to sustain the charges' was insufficient 'to prove a corpus delicti.'
With reference to the first of the above contentions, suffice it to say that no application for probation was filed by defendant. During the proceedings had upon entry of the guilty plea the then attorney for defendant stated, 'I should like to have leave to file an application for probation.' The following then took place:
'The Court: Under the law you have a right to apply for it, and of course I can tell you off hand, these cases, of course we have several interests to consider, the welfare of the defendant himself, but principally whether it is for the public good, and the very nature of the offense, it is almost necessary to exclude the idea of probation.
Thereupon the district attorney asked defendant a series of questions based upon the assumption that an application for probation would be filed by him. Four days later, when the case came on for imposition of sentence, the trial court stated in the presence of defendant and his attorney: The district attorney replied in the affirmative, and after statements by him, and a plea for leniency by counsel for defendant, the following conversation took place:
'Mr. Hawkins: No.
'Mr. Hawkins: No, sir.'
The court thereupon pronounced judgment, and sentence was imposed.
We find nothing whatever in this procedure which in the least supports an argument that error was committed. Even though an application for probation had been filed by defendant, the action of the trial court in disposing thereof would not be disturbed on review because of the wide discretion which it has in such matters.
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Callis v. People
-
Bradley v. People
...except where there is a clear abuse of discretion. McIntosh v. City and County of Denver, 144 Colo. 59, 355 P.2d 97; Hawkins v. The People, 131 Colo. 281, 281 P.2d 156; Gearhart v. People, 113 Colo. 9, 154 P.2d Our review of the hearings on February 14 and March 20 indicates no abuse of dis......
-
Stilley v. People
...indicate was done here. Marler v. People, 139 Colo. 23, 336 P.2d 101; Williams v. People, 134 Colo. 580, 307 P.2d 466; Hawkins v. People, 131 Colo. 281, 281 P.2d 156; Champion v. People, 124 Colo. 253, 236 P.2d It is further clear that any error there may have been in the imposition of sent......
- Celebrities Bowling, Inc. v. Shattuck
-
Defending the Client Charged With Dui
...108, 146 A.2d 550; State v. Brezina, 45 N.J. Super. 596, 133 A.2d 366; Hill v. State, 158 Tex. Cr. 313, 256 S.W.2d. 93; McRae v. People, 131 Colo. 281, 286 P.2d 618, Bryand v. State (Okla.), 302 P.2d 787. 15 State v. Canish, 103 N.J. Super. 66, 247 A.2d 492 (1968); Bass v. Commonwealth, 209......