Mazakahomni v. State

• Court: United States State Supreme Court of North Dakota
• Writing for the Court: MORRIS
• Citation: 25 N.W.2d 772,75 N.D. 73
• Decision Date: 18 January 1947
• Parties: MAZAKAHOMNI v. STATE.

75 N.D. 73
25 N.W.2d 772

MAZAKAHOMNI
v.
STATE.

Supreme Court of North Dakota.

Cr. 205.
Jan. 6, 1947.
Rehearing Denied Jan. 18, 1947.

Habeas corpus proceeding by Joseph Mazakahomni against the State of North Dakota seeking release from the state penitentiary.

Application for writ of habeas corpus denied.

Syllabus by the Court

1. A writ of habeas corpus cannot be utilized as a substitute for an appeal. Where relief is sought from a criminal judgment the scope of inquiry on habeas corpus is limited to questions of jurisdiction and we inquire into the correctness of the acts of the trial court only to the extent of determining whether it acted within its jurisdiction.

2. The Fifth and Sixth Amendments to the United States Constitution are not limitations upon the powers of the states but operate upon the Federal Government only and apply to trials in Federal courts. The due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, identical in language to that of the Fifth, is applicable to the states and to due process of law as administered by state courts.

3. A defendant in a criminal case is entitled, by virtue of the North Dakota Constitution and statutes, to defend in person and by counsel, to have a copy of the indictment or information, to meet the witnesses against him face to face, to have benefit of process to compel the attendance of witnesses in his behalf, and to a speedy

[25 N.W.2d 773]

public trial by an impartial jury. He may not be twice put in jeopardy nor be compelled to be a witness against himself.

4. The record is examined and it is held that the petitioner was not denied due process of law nor was there a violation of his constitutional or statutory rights to benefit of counsel.

5. Section 12-2722, R.C.N.D.1943, which requires that any person who pleads guilty to murder or manslaughter shall designate in his plea the degree of guilt to which he pleads does not require the accused to repeat in his own words the degree of the crime to which he pleads guilty.

Nels G. Johnson, Atty. Gen., I. A. Acker, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Obert C. Teigen, State's Atty., of Devils Lake, for respondent.

Strutz & Jansonius, of Bismarck, for petitioner.

MORRIS, Judge.

Joseph Mazakahomni has petitioned this court for an appropriate writ in the nature of habeas corpus. He seeks his release from the State Penitentiary to which he was committed to serve a life sentence for first degree murder pronounced by Hon. C. W. Buttz, Judge of the District Court of Ramsey County, North Dakota, on November 25, 1936. The petitioner attacks the validity of the judgment upon which his sentence is based as being rendered in violation of his constitutional rights. He sets forth four grounds substantially as follows:

1. That he was not accorded the right to assistance of counsel in any substantial sense as provided by the Constitution of the United States and the State of North Dakota.

2. That he was not informed of his constitutional rights as provided by law, and that no formal sentence was passed upon him.

3. That the court failed to comply with the provisions of the statute in accepting the petitioner's plea and in the determination of the punishment to be given and further that because of the evasive and qualifying statements made relative to the commission of the crime by petitioner through his counsel it was the duty of the court to reject the plea of guilty, order a plea of not guilty entered and put the petitioner on trial.

4. That the imprisonment is illegal in that the order and sentence of the court was in excess of its jurisdiction in that the defendant in his plea did not designate whether he was guilty of murder in the first degree and that the plea was indefinite and did not comply with Section 9480, Comp.Laws N.D.1913, Sec. 12-2722, R.C.N.D.1943.

The record discloses that the petitioner was brought before the District Court of Ramsey County at about 3 P.M., November 25, 1936, at which time the States Attorney asked leave to file a criminal information, charging the petitioner with murder in the first degree of one Alva Iron Bear on November 21, 1936. The deceased was an Indian girl about thirteen years of age. After granting permission to file the information the court inquired of the petitioner concerning his financial ability to employ a lawyer. The petitioner said that he had no money or personal property. The court then stated that before further proceedings were had he would appoint an attorney to consult with the petitioner. The attorney that the Court first sought to appoint was unable to accept the appointment because of an official position that he then occupied. The court then said to another member of the Bar who was present: ‘Mr. Adamson, Mr. Mazakahomni, this young man, is charged with murder in the first degree in an information just filed in this court, and while he is ready, I understand, to plead guilty and ready to sign a written confession, I have not permitted him to do that until he has an opportunity to consult a lawyer in view of the enormity of the charge, and if you will accept

[25 N.W.2d 774]

the appointment I will appoint you as counsel for the defendant.’

Mr. Adamson accepted the appointment and was handed a copy of the information. He and the petitioner retired to a private room and consulted. After their return to the court room the record shows that the following took place:

Mr. Adamson: The defendant at this time desires to enter a plea of guilty to the information filed against him, and in behalf of the defendant I would like to make a statement when the Court is pleased to hear it.

‘The Court: All right, after the plea. You have gone over the facts with Mr. Mazakahomni, have you?

‘Mr. Adamson: I have gone over the facts with him and he tells me he has signed a confession and that that was procured without any duress whatsoever, and he has also stated that he is guilty as charged, but that he did not intend it and was drunk at the time, and he is only nineteen years old. That fact might be taken into consideration hereafter by the Parole Board, but so far as the Court is concerned, all the Court can do is to pass sentence on the crime charged.

‘The Court: You are satisfied--

‘Mr. Adamson: I am satisfied that the defendant here is taking the right course and that all he can do is to enter a plea of guilty in view of the record now and his confession and his statement to me that there was no duress in obtaining the confession.

‘The Court: You are satisfied that regardless of the confession that the facts as he details them to you warrant a charge of murder in the first degree?

‘Mr. Adamson: I am, Your Honor.

‘The Court: All right, you may proceed. You may sign the written confession then, if you desire.’

The defendant then signed the following written confession in open court:

‘Confession of Guilt

I, the defendant named above do hereby confess that I am guilty of the crime charged in the information, to-wit: murder in the first degree and committed as therein set forth, within the County of Ramsey and State of North Dakota, and I hereby waive preliminary examination and desire forthwith to be permitted to enter a plea of guilty, and I ask for immediate arraignment and sentence.

Dated November 25, 1936

Joseph Mazakahomni Defendant.'

The information was read to the petitioner after which the following proceedings took place:

‘The Court: Mr. Mazakahomni, murder in the first degree is punishable in this state by imprisonment in the State Penitentiary for life, and if you plead guilty your punishment must under the law be fixed at imprisonment in the State Penitentiary for life. The court has no choice about that. You have heard what counsel has said in your presence and in the presence of the Court. You have talked this over with Mr. Adamson, have you? A. Yes, sir.

‘The Court: You have told him all about it that you know, have you? You told him all the facts, did you? A. Yes, sir.

‘The Court: Are you ready to plead at this time, Mr. Adamson?

‘Mr. Adamson: We are ready to plead.

‘The Court: You are ready to plead, are you Mr. Mazakahomni? A. Yes, sir.

‘The Court: Do you plead guilty or not guilty to the crime of murder in the first degree as charged in this information just read to you? A. Guilty.

‘The Court: You desire to plead guilty to the crime of murder in the first degree, do you? A. Yes, sir.

‘The Court: And you do so plead? A. Yes, sir.

‘The Court: Let the record show the defendant pleads guilty to the crime of murder in the first degree as charged in the information filed in this case, and which has just been read to him. (To Mr. Adamson) That is the plea you believe your client should enter, Mr. Adamson?

‘Mr. Adamson: That is the plea.

‘The Court: You told me, Mr. Admmson, that you desired to make a statement on behalf of the defendant for the record,

[25 N.W.2d 775]

and that while it hand't anything to do with the punishment that this Court must inflict, that nevertheless you thought it might have something to do with and would have something to do with the future of the case should it come before the Pardon or Parole Board. You may make such a statement.

‘Mr. Adamson: In the report the Court must make in connection with this sentence I would ask that the record show that this boy was only nineteen years old at the time of the commission of the crime, and was under the influence of intoxicating liquor.

‘The Court: Anything else?

‘Mr. Adamson: I might suggest that the record also show that at the time of the arraignment and plea here that he was represented by me and that I also appeared at the preliminary hearing for him.

‘The Court: You did appear for him?

‘Mr. Adamson: I volunteered my services at the preliminary hearing and I believe his rights have been fully protected.

‘The Court: Is there anything you care to say on the record, Mr. States Attorney, in connection with what Mr. Adamson has just said?

‘Mr. Thompson: If the Court please, it is true that the defendant claims to be nineteen...