Kendall v. Hudspeth
| Decision Date | 25 January 1947 |
| Docket Number | 36686. |
| Parties | KENDALL v. HUDSPETH. |
| Court | Kansas Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court
1. A proceeding in habeas corpus is not to be regarded as a substitute for appellate review.
2. Uncorroborated and unsupported allegations of a petitioner for a writ of habeas corpus are not sufficient to justify the granting of the writ.
3. Record in an original proceeding in habeas corpus examined and held: (a) Petitioner's contention that police officers forced him to sign a confession by threats coercion, and the use of 'third degree' methods, is wholly unsupported; (b) petitioner's contention that the county attorney forced him to plead guilty under threat of life imprisonment under the habitual criminal act if he did not do so, and promised him that the maximum sentence would be seven years, is wholly unsupported; (c) no grounds are shown to justify the granting of the writ.
Harold M. Slater, of Topeka, for petitioner.
A. B Mitchell, Atty. Gen., and Leon W. Lundblade, Asst. Atty Gen., for respondent.
This is an original proceeding in habeas corpus. The petitioner, W. L. Kendall, seeks release from the state penitentiary where he is serving a sentence of from one to twenty-one years for the crime of rape as defined in G.S.1935, 21-424. Upon proper showing that the petitioner was without funds, he was permitted to file his petition without a deposit for costs, and Mr. Harold M. Slater, a reputable attorney at law and a member of the Shawnee County bar, was appointed by the court to represent him. After investigation and one or more personal interviews with the petitioner, Mr. Slater filed a brief in his behalf and on the date set for hearing, the case was submitted upon briefs for petitioner and the state.
Some of the contentions made by petitioner relate to issues of fact or alleged trial errors which cannot be considered in this proceeding. A habeas corpus proceeding is not a substitute for appellate review. Kneisley v. Hudspeth, 161 Kan. 772, 173 P.2d 247, and cases cited on page 774; Powers v. Hudspeth, 161 Kan. 777, 778, 173 P.2d 251.
The two principal contentions subject to consideration here are that the police officers at Garden City, Kansas, where petitioner was arrested, used third degree methods upon him in order to secure a confession and that in the trial in the district court, the county attorney forced him to pleading guilty under the threat of life imprisonment under the habitual criminal act if he did not do so, and told him that if he would plead guilty, his maximum sentence would be seven years.
No purpose would be served by relating the facts and circumstances connected with the offense. In the information it is charged that the minor against whom the crime was committed was twelve years of age.
Upon verified information signed by the county attorney, Mr. W. C. Pearce, the defendant was duly arraigned in the district court of Finney County on October 27, 1943, and was represented then and during the trial by Mr. A. M. Fleming, an attorney in good standing and a member of the Finney County bar. A plea of guilty to the crime as charged was entered and accepted by the court, and upon inquiry from the court, the defendant stated that he had no legal cause to show why judgment and sentence should not be pronounced against him according to law. Sentence of not less than one year nor more than twenty-one years in the penitentiary was then imposed in conformity with the statute.
The contentions of the petitioner that the confession which he made to the police officers was brought about by threats and coercion and that the county attorney told him that if he pleaded guilty the maximum sentence would be seven years, and that unless he pleaded guilty he would be given a life sentence under the habitual criminal act are entirely unsupported. Wholly uncorroborated allegations of a petitioner for release in habeas corpus are...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hartman v. Edmondson
...entitled to a presumption of regularity and validity. See, e. g., Kneisley v. Hudspeth, 161 Kan. 772, 173 P.2d 247; Kendall v. Hudspeth, 162 Kan. 307, 308, 176 P.2d 254; Smith v. Hudspeth, 162 Kan. 361, 364, 176 P.2d 262; Long v. Hudspeth, 164 Kan. 720, 192 P.2d 169; Pyle v. Hudspeth, 166 K......
-
Long v. Hudspeth
... ... held that the unsupported and uncorroborated statements of ... the petitioner in such a proceeding do not sustain the burden ... of proof or justify the granting of a writ. See Hill v ... Hudspeth, 161 Kan. 376, 168 P.2d 922; Kneisley v ... Hudspeth, 161 Kan. 772, 173 P.2d 247; Kendall v ... Hudspeth, 162 Kan. 307, 176 P.2d 254; Smith v ... Hudspeth, 162 Kan. 361, 364, 176 P.2d 262 ... In ... passing it should perhaps be stated that so far as this ... second claim is concerned there is much to justify its ... rejection as fallacious. The record discloses that ... ...
-
Williams v. Crouse
...P.2d 1081; Hartman v. Edmondson, 178 Kan. 164, 166, 283 P.2d 397; Dionne v. Hudspeth, 166 Kan. 72, 73, 199 P.2d 176; Kendall v. Hudspeth, 162 Kan. 307, 308, 176 P.2d 254.' (185 Kan. c. 407, 345 P.2d l. c. For this reason alone the judgment of the district court was correct and should be aff......
-
Huston v. State
...P.2d 1081; Hartman v. Edmondson, 178 Kan. 164, 166, 283 P.2d 397; Dionne v. Hudspeth, 166 Kan. 72, 73, 199 P.2d 176; Kendall v. Hudspeth, 162 Kan. 307, 308, 176 P.2d 254.' (l. c. 407, 345 P.2d p. After a complete review of the record, we hold that the plaintiff did not sustain his burden of......