Peay v. Hand, 41206

Decision Date24 January 1959
Docket NumberNo. 41206,41206
PartiesEdwin Elmer PEAY, Appellant. v. Tracy A. HAND, Warden, Kansas State Penitentiary, Appellee.
CourtKansas Supreme Court

Syllabus by the Court

1. Where a defendant voluntarily enters a plea of guilty to a charge against him there is no occasion or requirement for the state to introduce evidence to prove the elements of the offense.

2. Where, under the provisions of G.S.1949, 21-524, a defendant is charged with the commission of a larceny in connection with a related burglary it is unnecessary for the state to allege the value of the property stolen.

3. The sufficiency of an information cannot be raised or considered in a habeas corpus proceeding.

4. Under G.S.1949, 62-2214, the granting or termination of a parole is not subject to review by an appellate court.

5. In an appeal from an order denying a writ of habeas corpus, the record is examined and considered, and it is held: No error.

Edwin Elmer Peay, appellant, was on the brief pro se.

John A. Emerson, Asst. Atty. Gen., argued the cause, and John Anderson, Jr., Atty. Gen., was with him on the brief for the appellee.

PRICE, Justice.

This appeal is from an order denying an application for a writ of habeas corpus.

The record discloses the following:

Petitioner (appellant here) was charged in an information filed in the district court of Butler county with the offense of burglary in the second degree, and also with the offense of larceny in connection therewith, the offenses consisting of breaking into and entering a tool shed in the nighttime, and the theft of certain described tools belonging to named individuals.

On September 7, 1956, petitioner, being present in court in person and by counsel, was duly arraigned and entered his voluntary plea of guilty to the charges of burglary and larceny as set forth in the information. He was sentenced on the burglary charge to confinement for not less than five years nor more than ten years, and to confinement for a period of not to exceed five years on the larceny charge, the sentences to run consecutively, pursuant to G.S.1949, 21-523 and 21-524.

On September 10, 1956, petitioner was granted a parole on the usual terms and conditions, and was released.

On September 15, 1956, upon motion of the state, the order of parole was revoked and petitioner was committed to the state penitentiary to serve the sentences previously imposed. He is presently confined in that institution.

If we understand petitioner's contentions correctly, complaint is made that the state failed to introduce evidence of his guilt; that the information failed to allege the value of the articles stolen, and that there was some 'irregularity' in connection with the granting and revocation of...

To continue reading

Request your trial
7 cases
  • Dexter v. Crouse
    • United States
    • Kansas Supreme Court
    • November 2, 1963
    ...is absolutely no need to introduce any evidence to maintain a conviction. (Berger v. Hand, 190 Kan. 220, 221, 373 P.2d 175; Peay v. Hand, 184 Kan. 182, 334 P.2d 369; Carrier v. Hand, 183 Kan. 350, 351, 327 P.2d 895; Darling v. Hoffman, 180 Kan. 137, 138, 299 P.2d 594.) Moreover, this court ......
  • McCall v. State
    • United States
    • Kansas Supreme Court
    • March 5, 1966
    ...is absolutely no need to introduce any evidence to maintain a conviction. Berger v. Hand, 190 Kan. 220, 221, 373 P.2d 175; Peay v. Hand, 184 Kan. 182, 334 P.2d 369; Carrier v. Hand, 183 Kan. 350, 351, 327 P.2d 895; Darling v. Hoffman, 180 Kan. 137, 138, 299 P.2d 594.) 'Moreover, this court ......
  • Berger v. Hand
    • United States
    • Kansas Supreme Court
    • July 7, 1962
    ...to maintain a conviction. (Darling v. Hoffman, 180 Kan. 137, 299 P.2d 594; Carrier v. Hand, 183 Kan. 350, 327 P.2d 895; and Peay v. Hand, 184 Kan. 182, 334 P.2d 369; see, also, State v. Downs, 185 Kan. 168, 341 P.2d His second contention is that since the trial court set no maximum sentence......
  • State v. Kowalec, 45578
    • United States
    • Kansas Supreme Court
    • April 11, 1970
    ...ring as being hers. The value of property stolen in a burglary is immaterial (State v. Long, 148 Kan. 47, 79 P.2d 837 and Peay v. Hand, 184 Kan. 182, 334 P.2d 369). The ring was found in defendant's car and the plastic case containing the coin was found on his Next, it is contended the cour......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT