Holland v. Gladden, Civ. No. 63-259.
| Decision Date | 16 December 1963 |
| Docket Number | Civ. No. 63-259. |
| Citation | 226 F. Supp. 654 |
| Parties | Paul Courter HOLLAND, Petitioner, v. Clarence T. GLADDEN, Warden, Oregon State Penitentiary, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Oregon |
Jerome L. Noble, Dallas, Or., for petitioner.
Robert Y. Thornton, Atty. Gen., of Oregon, and C. L. Marsters, Asst. Atty. Gen., Salem, Or., for defendant.
Petitioner filed an application for a writ of habeas corpus to set aside his conviction and twenty-year sentence based upon his plea of guilty to an information charging him with rape. Petitioner does not attack the five-year sentence for burglary, simultaneously imposed upon him. Petitioner admits that he committed the burglary and that he freely confessed and entered his plea on that count. However, petitioner alleges that he was coerced into signing a confession to the charge of rape. He further alleges that this coercion followed him into court and vitiated his waiver of indictment and right to counsel as well as his plea of guilty to the crime of rape.
The evidence is essentially undisputed. Petitioner had been under surveillance by the police for several months in connection not only with burglaries but also with a wave of criminal assaults upon women in various communities in Coos County, Oregon. The police had not arrested him earlier for burglaries which they saw him commit because they had reason to believe that he was committing the assaults and the public was clamoring for the apprehension of the culprit.
On September 6, 1960, at approximately 11:00 P.M., petitioner was arrested in a strange apartment house. Upon his arrest, petitioner volunteered the information that he had entered the premises for the purpose of burglarizing an apartment but he refused to admit participating in any of the assaults.
When the Sheriff and police officers insisted upon discussing the attacks on women, petitioner asked for an attorney. Petitioner was not acquainted with any attorneys in the area. At his request, the Sheriff placed three calls to local attorneys at about 1:30 A.M. Only one lawyer answered his telephone and he refused to come to the police station or to assist petitioner. The Sheriff then informed petitioner that he would take the petitioner before a magistrate at 10 o'clock in the morning. At no time was petitioner advised of his right to maintain silence, or that his statements could be used against him. In fact, the Sheriff told him that until he was brought before the magistrate, "you and I are going to talk."
Petitioner was not permitted to use the telephone to call his wife, and during the interrogation several assault victims and their husbands were called to the city jail and were permitted to see the petitioner through barred windows. During this period petitioner was partially disrobed in a search for identifying marks. As many as seven officers from both the County Sheriff's office and the City Police combined to interrogate petitioner from 11:00 P.M. to 4:00 A.M. Shortly after 4:00 A.M., petitioner confessed to a number of attempted and actual rapes and also to numerous burglaries. His confession was thereafter reduced to writing. Petitioner signed it. He was then permitted to call his wife.
Later that morning, petitioner, instead of being brought before a magistrate, was brought directly before a Circuit Judge. After the judge had told him of his constitutional rights, petitioner waived indictment and the right to counsel. He then entered a plea of guilty to an information charging him with burglary and rape. He was sentenced to five years for burglary and twenty years for rape, the sentences to run consecutively.
From the time of petitioner's arrest until sometime after his guilty plea was offered and accepted, he was constantly in the company of law enforcement officers.
The State contends that the facts and circumstances surrounding petitioner's confession did not amount to coercion. I disagree. The...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Miller v. Gladden
...It would seem that the remedy is not available to him at this time. United States v. Carpenter, 151 F. 214 (9 Cir. 1907); Holland v. Gladden (D.C.Or.) 226 F.Supp. 654. Assuming, arguendo, that the question is properly presented, it is my judgment that the contention is without merit. The Or......
-
Gladden v. Holland
...Holland was also lawfully imprisoned under a five-year sentence based upon an unchallenged conviction for burglary. Holland v. Gladden, D.Ct.D.Or., 226 F. Supp. 654. We affirmed, Holland v. Gladden, 9 Cir., 338 F.2d Following completion of the five-year term for burglary, Holland again appl......
-
Lewis v. Gladden, Civ. No. 63-519.
...circumstances the remedy of habeas corpus is not available. McNally v. Hill, 293 U.S. 131, 55 S.Ct. 24, 79 L.Ed. 238; Holland v. Gladden (D. C.Or.) 226 F.Supp. 654. The record discloses a vast amount of time and energy expended by assigned counsel for the petitioner. Such an energetic prese......
- Palisi v. Louisville & Nashville Railroad Co., Civ. A. No. 2676(S).