Kostal v. People
| Decision Date | 25 November 1968 |
| Docket Number | No. 23355,23355 |
| Citation | 167 Colo. 317,447 P.2d 536 |
| Parties | Albert J. KOSTAL, Plaintiff in Error, v. The PEOPLE of the State of Colorado, Defendant in Error. |
| Court | Colorado Supreme Court |
Albert J. Kostal, pro se.
Duke W. Dunbar, Atty. Gen., Frank E. Hickey, Deputy Atty. Gen., John P. Moore, Asst. Atty. Gen., Denver, for defendant in error.
Plaintiff in error will be referred to as the defendant. The factual background which is involved in this proceeding has been before this court on three different occasions. Kostal v. People, 160 Colo. 64 414 P.2d 123; Watson v. People, 155 Colo. 357, 394 P.2d 737; Kostal v. People, 144 Colo. 505, 357 P.2d 70.
Following the decision of this court in the case first cited, the defendant filed a motion under Colo.R.Crim.P. 35(b) the purpose of which was to vacate the judgment under which he is serving a life sentence for the crime of murder. His motion in substance alleges that 'falsified evidence' was introduced at the trial in violation of due process of law. The alleged 'falsified evidence' was an expended bullet cartridge which he alleges was substituted for the one actually found at the scene of the crime. His motion contains the following:
'* * * that on trial of the cause the doctored up 'test' cartridge case was offered into evidence by the District Attorney, Ronald Hardesty, acting in good faith and believing that it was the expended cartridge case found at the scene of the homicide.'
The trial court, on the basis of the failure of the motion on its face to show facts which, if true, would warrant relief, denied the motion and refused the request for appointment of counsel to represent the defendant.
If the motion contains no allegations of facts upon which relief can be granted, there is no requirement that an evidentiary hearing be had or that an attorney be appointed to represent the defendant. Brown, Jr. v. People, 159 Colo. 17, 409 P.2d 526; Saiz v. People, 156 Colo. 43, 396 P.2d 963. In the instant case the motion of defendant was fatally defective upon its face.
Miller v. Pate, 386 U.S. 1, 87 S.Ct. 785, 17 L.Ed.2d 690, which is relied on by the defendant, is clearly distinguishable on the facts. In that case it was made to appear that the prosecution Deliberately misrepresented the truth and obtained a conviction 'by the knowing use of false evidence.'
Moreover, we take judicial notice of our own records from which it appears that the defendant in the case of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Martinez v. Ryan
...curiam); Jensen v. State, 2004 ND 200, ¶ 13, 688 N.W.2d 374, 378;Wu v. United States, 798 A.2d 1083, 1089 (D.C.2002) ; Kostal v. People, 167 Colo. 317, 447 P.2d 536 (1968). It is likely that most of the attorneys appointed by the courts are qualified to perform, and do perform, according to......
-
Martinez v. Ryan
...curiam); Jensen v. State, 2004 ND 200, ¶ 13, 688 N.W.2d 374, 378; Wu v. United States, 798 A.2d 1083, 1089 (D.C.2002) ; Kostal v. People, 167 Colo. 317, 447 P.2d 536 (1968). It is likely that most of the attorneys appointed by the courts are qualified to perform, and do perform, according t......
-
Demarest v. Price, 95-1535
...relief is wholly unfounded." Hubbard, 519 P.2d at 948 (citing Haines v. People, 169 Colo. 136, 454 P.2d 595 (1969) and Kostal v. People, 167 Colo. 317, 447 P.2d 536 (1968)). Given the convicted defendant's right to post-conviction counsel, the Colorado Supreme Court reasoned, it is possible......
-
Ex parte Garcia
...showing that his claim has merit and that he cannot proceed without counsel); Colorado (Colo. Rule Crim. Proc. 35 ; Kostal v. People, 167 Colo. 317, 447 P.2d 536 (1968) (if application contains “no allegations of facts” on which relief can be granted, then appointment of counsel is unnecess......