McCormick v. Hollowell

• Decision Date: 07 February 1933
• Docket Number: No. 41619.,41619.
• Citation: 215 Iowa 638,246 N.W. 612
• Parties: MCCORMICK v. HOLLOWELL, WARDEN. HABERMAN v. HOLLOWELL, WARDEN.
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

215 Iowa 638

246 N.W. 612

MCCORMICK

v.HOLLOWELL, WARDEN.

HABERMAN

v.HOLLOWELL, WARDEN.

No. 41619.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

Feb. 7, 1933.

Appeal from District Court, Lee County; John M. Rankin, Judge.

This is a habeas corpus proceeding. The two plaintiffs filed separate petitions. Each of them is confined in the State Penitentiary under sentence for murder. They were participants in the same crime and the pertinent facts in the case apply to both of them. By agreement therefore both cases have been tried upon the same record. Both are entitled to the same relief, if any, or to none at all. The trial court dismissed the petition of each. From such order each has appealed.

Affirmed.Frantzen, Gilloon & Glenn, of Dubuque, for appellants.

John J. Kintzinger, of Dubuque, J. M. C. Hamilton, of Fort Madison, and Al. J. Nelson, of Dubuque, for appellee.

EVANS, J.

On March 17, 1930, a county attorney's information was filed against these plaintiffs charging them with the murder, on March 15, of one Hanfeldt, a city marshal in the town of Dyersville. To this information they pleaded guilty in the district court of Dubuque county and asked for immediate sentence. Sentence was accordingly pronounced imposing a life term in the penitentiary upon each of them. They challenge here the validity of the judgment of the court on the ground that the court disobeyed the mandate of section 12913, Code, and failed to examine witnesses as to the degree of the offense to which these petitioners pleaded guilty, and failed to enter upon the record the degree of the offense for which they were sentenced.

The county-attorney information to which the petitioners pleaded was attended with a bill of particulars purporting to state the facts and stating the names of the witnesses by whom such facts could be proved. This bill of particulars contained a recital of the confessions or admissions made by the plaintiffs themselves after their arrest. It likewise stated the names of the officers to whom such admissions were made and by whom the same would be proved. The substance of the facts, as thus recited by the petitioners, is set forth in appellee's brief as follows: “It is shown by the Bill of Particulars filed with the information in this case, that on March 13, 1930, petitioners, McCormick and Haberman, stole a De Soto Roadster at Madison, Wisconsin, drove it to their home at Prairie du Sac, Wisconsin, kept it in a garage rented by the mother of one of them. That they were short of money and arranged to leave Prairie du Sac and rob oil stations to obtain money. That on March 14th, they left their home, coming toward Dubuque, equipped with two automatic revolvers and a change of female clothing. That on Friday, March 14th, they stopped on the highway somewhere, and at about 7:00 o'clock Saturday, March 15th, they went to an oil station at Luxemburg, Dubuque County, Iowa, covered the attendant with loaded revolvers and robbed said station. That they then fled toward Dyersville, and as they came into Dyersville, they saw an officer in the road waving his arms, said officer having a gun in one of his hands. That as they approached said officer, they drove right toward him and swerved around him, and as they went by, shot and killed him. They fled from the scene of the shooting, changed their clothing, one changing to female attire. They came to Dubuque, crossed the river into Illinois and were arrested in East Dubuque. That on Sunday, March 16th, some of the relatives of defendants, and Attorney McMany, representing both defendants, called the County Attorney to the Police Station in the City of Dubuque. After some discussion of the case, Attorney McMany stated that if the State would recommend life imprisonment, both defendants would plead guilty to murder. That all of the matters were brought to the attention of the Court in the presence of Counsel McMany, for defendants.”

It further appears that before entering judgment or imposing sentence, the trial court asked the petitioners and their counsel if there was any reason why sentence should not be then pronounced. This query was answered in the negative both by the plaintiffs and by their counsel. At this point the attorney for the petitioners addressed the court as follows: “If the Court please, in answer to that question I would say no. I would like, if Your Honor please, to say that coming to your city yesterday I investigated the facts in relation to the offense of which these boys are charged, and after such investigation I became satisfied beyond question that they committed the offense which is charged against them in the Information. I became satisfied that in justice to the Court, in justice to the officers and in justice to these young men themselves, that a plea of guilty should be entered. In entering that plea of guilty I would like to say to the Court that in view of the tender age of these defendants, Gerald Haberman being under seventeen, Raymond McCormick being under eighteen, that it would be a case in which the Court would see fit to exercise and extend clemency. These boys are high school students; Haberman is a junior in the high school and McCormick is a senior in the high school. In their community the boys are well liked; their reputation for honesty, integrity and industry is good. They come from good families and it is a real calamity, as Your Honor so well knows, that two young boys should be so mistaken in their views of life as to do the things those boys have done, and as they have admitted doing, and as for which they should be punished. I do feel that the boys when they are committed to an institution for correction or for punishment or both, that they will make good, so to speak. I do believe that their conduct will be such that when the proper time comes they may make application to the proper officers and their application for parole or pardon will receive favorable consideration. I believe that the boys will undertake to conform to every rule and regulation of any institution to which they may be committed, and I believe that if they do that, that their future destiny is pretty much in their own hands. I believe that in your state there is a parole or pardon board and it is to that board, I presume, later on they may make application for a commutation of sentence or for a pardon. I would ask, if Your Honor please, that you would extend the clemency of the Court in imposing the sentence on these young men.”

Thereupon the court entered the judgment and imposed the sentence. The court made no examination of additional witnesses. It purported to rely upon the alleged confession and the statements of their counsel as above shown. Both the alleged confession and the statement of their counsel were presented in the presence of the petitioners and were in no manner repudiated. It is not claimed now that any mitigating fact...