McMichaels v. Hancock, 6024
| Decision Date | 27 February 1970 |
| Docket Number | O,No. 6024,6024 |
| Citation | 110 N.H. 168,269 A.2d 30 |
| Parties | John A. McMICHAELS v. Parker L. HANCOCK, Warden of the State Prison. riginal. |
| Court | New Hampshire Supreme Court |
Jerome L. Silverstein, Nashua, and Raymond Letourneau, New Bedford, Mass., for plaintiff.
George S. Pappagianis, Atty. Gen., and Henry F. Spaloss, Asst. Atty. Gen., for defendant.
This is a petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed in this court to obtain the release of the petitioner who is confined in the State Prison. The petition first alleges that he was charged with the crime of burglary in violation of RSA ch. 583 and that he waived indictment and pleaded guilty on August 15, 1967. That the offense with which he was charged was committed prior to August 8, 1967 and no charge was pending against him prior to that date. Laws 1967, ch. 190 enacted a new burglary statute and repealed RSA ch. 583 effective August 8, 1967.
The plaintiff argues that the repeal of RSA ch. 583 barred prosecution of burglaries committed before August 8, 1967 and not pending on the date of the repeal. The claim of the plaintiff is concluded adversely to him by the case of State v. Banks, 108 N.H. 350, 236 A.2d 110 decided on precisely the same factual situation.
The petition also claims that at no time prior to accepting his plea of guilty did the Trial Court inquire into the voluntariness of this plea, inform him of his constitutional rights or the possible consequences of his plea. We assume that this is a claim that the plea of the defendant was made without understanding the nature of the charges against him, the possible consequences of his plea, or his constitutional rights.
The authority of this court to issue original writs of habeas corpus authorized by RSA 490:4 is not ordinarily exercised if the Superior Court has the opportunity to exercise concurrent jurisdiction. LaBelle v. Hancock, 99 N.H. 254, 108 A.2d 545. However, where the initial action of the Superior Court would be a mere formality we have not hesitated to consider the petition. Petition of Moebus, 73 N.H. 350, 62 A. 170. The issue of whether plaintiff's plea of guilty was voluntary is presented to us here as a bare claim with no record of the circumstances under which the plea was taken. We have no way of determining the validity of plaintiff's claim without a record. It follows that initial action in the Superior Court in this case is no mere formality but an absolute...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
McMichaels v. Hancock, 7607.
...by the legislature as a continuing basis for prosecutions of acts taking place before the new statute took effect. McMichaels v. Hancock, 109 N.H. ___, 269 A.2d 30 (1970). We review only constitutional issues. The state court's interpretation of its statute, and its conclusion that the earl......
-
Dunne v. Vitek, 6809
...corpus requiring factual determination without prejudice to any petition which may be filed with the superior court. McMichaels v. Hancock, 110 N.H. 168, 269 A.2d 30 (1970); LaBelle v. State, 108 N.H. 241, 231 A.2d 480 (1967). Disputes such as this are less likely to arise if at the time a ......
-
State v. Sampson
...the prior statute remains applicable to all offenses committed prior to the amendment's effective date. Id.; accord McMichaels v. Hancock, 110 N.H. 168, 269 A.2d 30 (1970). "This conclusion is reasonable, logical and constitutional." State v. Banks, supra 108 N.H. at 352, 236 A.2d at Moreov......