Lewis v. Tinsley, 18554
| Decision Date | 14 October 1958 |
| Docket Number | No. 18554,18554 |
| Citation | 330 P.2d 532 |
| Parties | Eugene Raymond LEWIS, Plaintiff in Error, v. Harry C. TINSLEY, Warden of the Colorado State Penitentiary, Defendant in Error. |
| Court | Colorado Supreme Court |
William O. DeSouchet, John G. Taussig, Jr., and William A. Trine, Boulder, for plaintiff in error.
Duke W. Dunbar, Atty. Gen., Frank E. Hickey, Deputy Atty. Gen., John W. Patterson, Asst. Atty. Gen., for defendant in error.
Plaintiff in error was the petitioner in the lower court in a habeas corpus proceeding in which he sought release from the state penitentiary on a number of grounds. Contending that the court erred in denying his petition for habeas corpus, he brings the matter here on writ of error.
In 1950 petitioner was charged by an information in four counts with: robbery, assault with intent to commit murder; assault and battery, and kidnapping. Upon being arraigned, petitioner, represented by counsel, entered a plea of guilty to assault with intent to commit murder and robbery. What disposition was made of the other counts is not shown in the record, but we assume the other counts were dropped. At the time of the sentence neither petitioner nor counsel made any statement as to why sentence should not be pronounced. Petition for habeas corpus was filed seven years after the original cause. Petitioner never sought review of the original proceedings.
Petitioner, acting pro se, set forth thirteen allegations in his petition for the writ. Later he was represented by counsel, and the petition was amended by leave of court. In summary, petitioner alleged that he was deprived of his right to counsel; was insane at the time of the arraignment, at least to the extent that he did not comprehend the consequences of a guilty plea; that he was coerced into making the plea; that the district attorney promised him a lighter sentence than the one given by the court. Nowhere in the petition or amended petition was it alleged that the court lacked jurisdiction of the person or the offense or that the sentence was not within the statutory limitations.
It is to be noted that petitioner's contention that he was not represented by counsel is modified by the assertion that he was not represented by 'effective' counsel. There is a statement in the brief of plaintiff in error, but not in the record, that although counsel was appointed for him on the day of his entry of the plea of guilty, such counsel for reasons not disclosed could not appear, but his associate appeared to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Norton v. Green, 37326
...by appeal and not in a habeas corpus proceeding. McConnaughy v. Alvis, Warden, 165 Ohio St. 102, 133 N.E.2d 133, and Lewis v. Tinsely, Warden, 138 Colo. 117, 330 P.2d 532. The petitioner raises two questions as to his preliminary hearing. First, he contends he did not have one. According to......