In re Bob Mote
Decision Date | 07 October 1916 |
Docket Number | 20,903 |
Citation | 98 Kan. 804,160 P. 223 |
Parties | In re BOB MOTE, Petitioner |
Court | Kansas Supreme Court |
Decided July, 1916.
Original proceeding in habeas corpus.
Writ denied.
SYLLABUS BY THE COURT.
1. BIGAMY--Trial by Jury May be Waived--Plea of Guilty Waived Question of Jurisdiction. The constitutional guaranties in section 10 of the bill of rights, which insure to every person accused of crime a speedy public trial by an impartial jury of the county in which the offense is alleged to have been committed, etc., are personal privileges which the accused may waive, and when they are freely waived by a person charged with crime, by a plea of guilty in a district court of general jurisdiction, it is too late thereafter to challenge the constitutionality of the statute conferring jurisdiction upon the court which imposed judgment upon him.
2. SAME--Plea of Guilty in County Where Apprehended--Jurisdiction Can Not be Raised in Habeas Corpus Proceedings. The constitutionality of section 2714 of the General Statutes of 1909 authorizing the prosecution of a bigamist "in the county in which the offender may be apprehended," can not be raised in a habeas corpus proceeding by a person who has waived his constitutional privileges and pleaded guilty to the crime of bigamy as charged in the information filed against him in the district court of the county in which he was apprehended.
3. SAME--Indeterminate Sentence--Not Void for Uncertainty. A judgment and commitment in a bigamy case recited that "thereupon the defendant . . . being duly arraigned enters his plea of guilty to the charge of bigamy as charged in the information filed in this case . . . and . . . the court thereupon finds the defendant . . . guilty of bigamy as charged in the information.
"It is therefore by the court considered, ordered and adjudged that the said defendant, Bob Mote, be confined at hard labor in the Kansas State Penitentiary, located at Lansing, Leavenworth County, Kansas, until discharged therefrom as by law provided," etc. Held, that such judgment and commitment are not void for uncertainty, and that the duration of the petitioner's imprisonment is governed by sections 225, 226 and 227 of the crimes act (Gen. Stat. 1909, §§ 2711-2713) and by the provisions of the indeterminate sentence act (Laws 1903, ch. 375, Crim. Code, §§ 272a-272j).
Paul C. Mails, Jesse A. Hall, and LeRoy T. Hand, all of Leavenworth, for the petitioner.
S. M. Brewster, attorney-general, for the respondent.
This is an application for a writ of habeas corpus. The petitioner was apprehended and prosecuted in Reno county on an information charging him with having committed the crime of bigamy in Finney county. On arraignment he pleaded guilty and was sentenced to confinement in the state penitentiary "until discharged therefrom as by law provided." After serving some eighteen months of this sentence, he brings this proceeding, and contends (a) that the district court of Reno county did not have jurisdiction to accept his plea of guilty and to render judgment against him, and (b) that the duration of his sentence can not be ascertained from the judgment and commitment, and that they are therefore void for uncertainty.
The statute under which the petitioner was prosecuted in Reno county, in part, reads:
"An indictment [or information, Crim. Code, § 66] for bigamy as defined in the preceding sections may be found, and proceedings, trial, conviction, judgment and execution thereon had, in the county in which such second or subsequent marriage or the cohabitation shall have taken place, or in the county in which the offender may be apprehended." (Gen. Stat. 1909, § 2714.)
It is contended that the last clause of the statute just quoted violates section 10 of the bill of rights, which provides:
But none of these constitutional privileges was arbitrarily withheld from him. He might have invoked any or all of them. He might have demanded a jury trial in Finney county. He did not care to contest the state's accusation. He waived these privileges. He entered a plea of guilty.
In the early case of The State v. Potter, 16 Kan. 80, it was held:
(Syl. P 5.)
To the same effect are The State v. Kindig, 55 Kan. 113, 39 P. 1028, syl. P 3, 39 P. 1028; Lightfoot v. The Commonwealth, 80 Ky. 516; Hourigan v. Commonwealth, 94 Ky. 520, 23 S.W. 355; Ledgerwood v. The State, 134 Ind. 81, 33 N.E. 631; State v. Fitzgerald, 51 Minn. 534, 53 N.W. 799; and In re Blum, 30 N.Y.S. 396, 9 Misc. 571.
The case of The State v. Smiley, 98 Mo. 605, 12 S.W. 247, cited and pressed by counsel, does not touch the question of waiver. As we read that report, it would appear that the accused, who was charged with the crime of bigamy committed in Johnson county, contested the jurisdiction of the Madison county court from the inception of the proceedings against him. That questions as to the jurisdiction of the court may be waived in Missouri as elsewhere, see The State v. Gamble, 119 Mo. 427, 24 S.W. 1030.
Until the statute (Gen. Stat. 1909, § 2714) is assailed by one whose constitutional guaranties are being taken or withheld from him without his waiver or consent we need not...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Brown
...tried in the county in which the offense was committed is a personal privilege and may be waived by him." 16 C. J. 187, citing In re Mote, 98 Kan. 804, 160 P. 223; State v. Kindig, 55 Kan. 113, 39 P. 1028; Kennison v. State, 83 Neb. 391, 119 N. W. 768; State v. Crinklaw, 40 Neb. 759, 59 N. ......
-
State ex rel. Lea v. Brown
... ... the issue of venue which is here involved. It is well settled ... that "the right which the constitution gives to a ... defendant to be tried in the county in which the offense was ... committed is a personal privilege and may be waived by ... him." 16 C.J. 187, citing In re Mote, 98 Kan ... 804, 160 P. 223; State v. Kindig, 55 Kan. 113, 39 P ... 1028; Kennison v. State, 83 Neb. 391, 119 N.W. 768; ... State v. Crinklaw, 40 Neb. 759, 59 N.W. 370; ... State v. Browning, 70 S.C. 466, 50 S.E. 185. This ... court holds that "the right to object to the locality of ... ...
-
State v. Rodriguez
...to a discharge for delay occasioned by his own act, application or agreement. [Citations omitted.] .... "In the case of In re Mote, 98 Kan. 804, 160 Pac. 223 [ (1916) ], although not factually in point, it was 'The constitutional guaranties in section 10 of the bill of rights, which insure ......
-
Poston, Application of, A-12135
...was too late. He had waived his right as irrevocably as if by express words. Magee v. People, 79 Colo. 328, 333, 245 P. 708; Ex parte Mote, 98 Kan. 804, 160 P. 223; State v. Browning, 70 S.C. 466, 50 S.E. 185; People v. Fontuccio, 73 Colo. 288, 290, 215 P. The rule is stated in 14 American ......