Nadeau v. State

• Decision Date: 03 June 1963
• Citation: 159 Me. 260,191 A.2d 261
• Parties: Louis NADEAU v. STATE of Maine.
• Court: Maine Supreme Court

Page 261

191 A.2d 261

159 Me. 260

Louis NADEAU v. STATE of Maine.

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine.

June 3, 1963.

Donald P. Allen, Biddeford, for plaintiff.

John W. Benoit, Asst. Atty. Gen., Augusta, for defendant.

Before WILLIAMSON, C. J., and WEBBER, TAPLEY, SULLIVAN, SIDDALL and MARDEN, JJ.

MARDEN, Justice.

On appeal from the dismissal of a writ of error coram nobis, and affirmation of judgment for the State.

The petitioner-appellant Louis Nadeau was convicted of the crime of murder at the January 1950 Term of the York County Superior Court and was sentenced to mandatory imprisonment for life. By an undated document which was subscribed and sworn to on March 19, 1962 he applied for a writ of error coram nobis alleging a denial of his constitutional right to a fair and impartial trial and the benefit of 'due process of law'; that a confession was obtained from him by force; that because of his fear of police violence he did not reveal this alleged coercion to his attorney at the time of trial; that through the same fear of violence he was prevented from testifying in his own defense; that 'the lawyers he has hired have only taken the few dollars your petitioner has been able to obtain and done nothing'; and that previous attempts through post conviction processes to obtain justice had been unsuccessful 'because your petitioner does not understand law or how to draw a proper petition'. This petition was filed with the Superior Court in York County and the State seasonably answered and moved to dismiss as to those issues which had been decided at the trial on the homicide charge, and on subsequent post conviction proceedings. Constitutional issues remained which had not been previously considered. At sometime during the period between the filing of the petition and the September 1962 Term of the Superior Court for York County, counsel for the petitioner entered an appearance. The date of this entry does not appear in the record.

By letter dated September 12, 1962 to the Chief Justice of this court purporting ¹ to be written by the petitioner, he complains of having had no hearing on his petition and continues 'I have an attorney but he is not representing me in this action, and has indicated he does not want to. This action was filed pro se and that is the way it remains to this date, I would appreciate that a date certain be set for hearing in this matter'. This letter was forwarded by the Chief Justice to the presiding justice at the September 1962 Term of the Superior Court for York County then in session and the office of the Attorney General in cooperation with the petitioner and the court prepared a writ of error coram nobis and the necessary order of notice thereon dated October 12, 1962 returnable on October 15, 1962, within the September Term.

There was other correspondence purportedly signed by Mr. Nadeau to the presiding justice of the Superior Court at York County, the very proper purpose of which was to obtain an assignment for hearing on his petition.

Counsel, who, at some time after the filing of Mr. Nadeau's petition had entered an appearance for Mr. Nadeau, wrote the Clerk of Courts of York County under date of November 2, 1962 that his appearance was withdrawn prior to the September 1962 Term and that the presiding justice and Attorney General's office were so advised.

Mr. Nadeau appeared before the court on October 15, 1962 for himself and from the extracts transcribed from that hearing we have the following colloquy:

'THE COURT: You don't have an attorney.

'THE PETITIONER: No. That is right.

'THE COURT: And you indicated to me in your letter that you did not wish the services of an attorney and you were going to present your own case, so I will explain to you how you can do that, Mr. Nadeau. * * *.'

Hearing was held on the merits of the writ of error resulting in a decree of October 18, 1962 ordering a dismissal of the writ and affirming judgment for the State.

By letter dated October 21, 1962 purportedly written by Mr. Nadeau an appeal from this dismissal was claimed. By paper undated, but subscribed and sworn to on October 22, 1962, petitioner filed a motion to proceed 'in forma pauperis' on his appeal; that a record of the hearing on the writ of error be furnished him without costs; and that counsel be appointed to prosecute the appeal, to which motion was attached an affidavit of indigence. By decree of the Superior Court dated October 29, 1962 the presiding justice determined that the petitioner was indigent, that the appeal was filed in good faith, and appointed counsel to represent him.

Contents of the record on appeal were designated and from the nine points raised on the appeal, error on the part of the presiding justice is claimed because no counsel was appointed for the petitioner for his hearing on the writ of error in the light of petitioner's illiteracy and the court's alleged failure to determine petiti...