Hudspeth v. People
| Decision Date | 29 October 1962 |
| Docket Number | No. 20312,20312 |
| Citation | 151 Colo. 5,375 P.2d 518 |
| Parties | Oran Finley HUDSPETH, Plaintiff in Error, v. The PEOPLE of the State of Colorado, Defendant in Error. |
| Court | Colorado Supreme Court |
Oran Finley Hudspeth, pro se.
Duke W. Dunbar, Atty. Gen., Frank E. Hickey, Deputy Atty. Gen., George W. Nicastro, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., Denver, for defendant in error.
Plaintiff in error, to whom we will refer as the defendant, was accused of having committed the crime of burglary. The information was filed July 12, 1961, and on the same day defendant and another, named as co-defendant, were arraigned. Defendant entered a plea of guilty to the charge, and, after being warned by the court concerning the consequences of a plea of guilty, persisted therein.
July 13, 1961, evidence was taken in mitigation or aggravation of the offense. The evidence established that the store of Mr. Crawley was broken into at about five o'clock A.M. on June 13, 1961; that in effecting the entry a glass window 4 1/2 by 7 feet was broken by a bar used by defendant; that guns of a total value of $455.00 were taken; that the guns were recovered--one from the home of defendant's sister, two from the home of the father of the co-defendant, and the rest were retrieved from a hiding place where they had been placed by the defendant and his co-defendant.
The co-defendant first implicated defendant in the crime, and when confronted with this statement defendant admitted his part in the commission of the offense. It appears that both of the persons accused were co-operative with the police and freely admitted participation in the burglary. Following presentation of the evidence the court inquired if either defendant had anything to say why judgment and sentence should not be pronounced. The co-defendant was represented by counsel and a conference was held between defendant, his co-defendant and counsel for the latter, after which the inquiry of the court was answered in the negative.
The matter was continued for imposition of sentence and on the date the case was called for that purpose counsel appeared for the defendant and asked leave to file a 'Motion for a Change of Plea.' The imposition of sentence was thereupon postponed. The motion was filed and set for hearing at a later date. The only ground upon which defendant's motion to change his plea is based, is as follows:
The above-quoted language falls far short of the detailed statement required before a motion for relief based on 'newly discovered evidence' is entitled to any consideration by the court. Gasper v. People, 83 Colo. 341, 265...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Peters v. Dillon
...to have reference to Rule 35(b), and there the Court did not find it necessary to comprehensively review the Rule. See Hudspeth v. People, 375 P.2d 518 (Colo.1962) * * * In this regard, since Fay v. Noia (372 U.S. 391, 83 S.Ct. 822, 9 L.Ed.2d 837 (1963)) was decided, we think the Colorado C......
-
Ruark v. People
...the circumstances, Ruark is not entitled to another hearing on the question of the voluntariness of his confession. See Hudspeth v. People, 151 Colo. 5, 375 P.2d 518. Ruark also contends that since he did not have counsel at the time he made his confession that judgment of the trial court i......
-
Martinez v. Tinsley
...a habeas corpus proceeding. It is doubtful whether a Rule 35(b) proceeding would also be a proper procedure in view of Hudspeth v. People, 151 Colo. 5, 375 P.2d 518 (1962), which agreed with the holding of the lower court that relief under Rule 35(b) could not be granted upon entry of a ple......
-
Whitman v. People
...Court and, therefore, could not form the basis for a motion under 35(b). In doing so, the judge relied on the case of Hudspeth v. People, 151 Colo. 5, 375 P.2d 518. This Court no longer follows the rule of the Hudspeth case. In People v. Bradley, Colo., 455 P.2d 199, 200, the court '* * * M......