People v. Litsey, 26539
| Decision Date | 18 October 1976 |
| Docket Number | No. 26539,26539 |
| Citation | 555 P.2d 974,192 Colo. 19 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of Colorado, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Evert Owen LITSEY, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | Colorado Supreme Court |
J. D. MacFarlane, Atty. Gen., Jean E. Dubofsky, Deputy Atty. Gen., J. Stephen Phillips, Asst. Atty. Gen., Denver, for plaintiff-appellee.
Rollie R. Rogers, Colorado State Public Defender, James F. Dumas, Jr., Chief Deputy State Public Defender, Thomas M. Van Cleave, III, Deputy State Public Defender, Denver, for defendant-appellant.
The defendant, Evert Owen Litsey, was charged by information with rape, first-degree kidnapping, and with being an habitual criminal. The jury returned a verdict of guilty of the lesser-included offense of gross sexual imposition and a verdict finding the defendant to be an habitual criminal. The defendant appeals, alleging numerous errors. We affirm.
The evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the prosecution, showed that on October 16, 1973, the defendant was returning from a swimming party near Grand Junction, Colorado with two young women. While one of the women was driving, the defendant forced her to stop the car and ordered both women to disrobe. The defendant took the driver's seat and headed west on Interstate 70 towards the Utah border.
Some miles into Utah, the defendant stopped the vehicle and struck one of the women, apparently because she had refused to obey his order to disrobe. The defendant then forced the other woman (the victim) to engage in several acts of sexual intercourse.
The defendant then ordered the two women into the automobile and headed back to Colorado. A stop was made at a self-service gasoline station. The victim testified that the defendant threatened to kill the two women as well as the station attendant if the two women attempted to exit from the vehicle.
Upon arriving at the defendant's residence in Colorado, the defendant placed the woman he had previously struck in the living room and ordered the victim into the bedroom. The defendant then again forced the victim to engage in several acts of sexual intercourse. The next morning the defendant permitted the two women to leave his residence, and shortly after the women returned home, the police were summoned.
The victim gave the sheriff the name and address of her assailant. The deputy sheriff checked the Mesa County records and ascertained that the defendant had previously been convicted of rape and had also been twice charged with escape from confinement some years earlier.
The deputy sheriff immediately proceeded to the defendant's residence to arrest the defendant. The sheriff knocked on the door of the defendant's apartment and a voice inside invited him to enter. The sheriff did so and placed the defendant under arrest for rape and kidnapping. On his way out of the apartment, the sheriff observed and seized a pair of women's panties.
At the sheriff's office, the defendant was interrogated by a deputy sheriff and an FBI agent. The defendant was fully advised of his Miranda rights. Nevertheless, the defendant chose to make an inculpatory statement which was reduced to writing by the FBI agent and signed by the defendant. Some time later, but not during the day on which the defendant was arrested, the defendant was taken before a court for a judicial advisement of rights.
The denial of the defendant's motion to suppress as evidence the panties and the defendant's statement is assigned as error. The motion was predicated on the theory that the panties and statement were the fruits of an unlawful arrest and that the statement was obtained in violation of Crim.P. 5.
Defendant maintains that his arrest was unlawful because he was arrested without a warrant. In People v. Hoinville, Colo., 553 P.2d 777, announced August 9, 1976, we held that section 16--3--102, C.R.S.1973, requires that an arrest warrant be secured unless exigent circumstances necessitate immediate police action in arresting a person.
The trial judge in this case made a finding that exigent circumstances were present when the deputy sheriff made a warrantless arrest of the defendant. This finding is supported by the evidence.
The deputy sheriff effectuating the arrest knew that a violent, serious crime had just been committed and under the facts then known to him certainly had probable cause to believe that the defendant had committed the crime. The sheriff was also aware of the defendant's prior history of escape from confinement. We think these facts support the finding of exigent circumstances sufficient to justify a warrantless arrest. Knowledge of a prior history of escape would lead a reasonable person to conclude that time is of the essence in the apprehension of the subject; with each passing moment, the chances of apprehending the suspect decrease.
The trial judge found that the panties were seized while in plain view and since the arrest was lawful, the seizure was likewise valid as incident to the arrest.
Defendant also contends that the trial court should have granted his motion to suppress because he was not taken before a judge without unreasonable delay, in violation of Crim.P. 5.
Even if there was a violation of Crim.P. 5, the finding of such a violation does not automatically invalidate a confession. In the absence of a factual showing of prejudice, the failure to comply with Rule 5 does not require suppression of voluntary statements. People v. Gilmer, 182 Colo. 96, 511 P.2d 494 (1973).
The trial judge found that the statement was voluntarily made. This finding is well-supported by the record. In fact, the record shows that the defendant was several times fully advised of his Miranda rights. Therefore, any violation of Rule 5 constitutes harmless error and the trial court correctly refused to suppress the defendant's statement on this ground.
The defendant contends that he was denied theeffective assistance of counsel by certain actions and statements of the trial court.
When the defendant first appeared before the trial court, he was represented by the public defender. Later, the public defender withdrew from the case when the defendant retained private counsel. When the district attorney filed habitual criminal charges against the defendant, a dispute arose between the defendant and his retained counsel as to the plea to be entered to the habitual criminal charge in the event of a conviction on the substantive charges. As a result of this dispute, the defendant attempted to discharge the attorney.
When the court became aware of these developments, it offered to reappoint the public defender, or if that were improper for some reason, other private counsel. The defendant responded that he was not indigent and did not require appointed counsel. He stated that he wished to hire private counsel but had not had the opportunity to do so prior to the hearing.
The trial court ruled that counsel could not withdraw until substituted counsel were obtained and in any event, the trial date of April 29 would have to be met by anyone who tried the case.
Defendant made no effort to employ new counsel and the defendant appeared on the trial date apparently prepared to represent himself.
We find it unnecessary to determine whether the twelve day period between the time the trial court was apprised of the counsel problem and the date set for trial would be insufficient for new counsel to prepare for the trial. Had the defendant secured new counsel, the newly retained lawyer could have approached the trial court for a continuance. Here, however, the defendant made no effort to retain counsel after being told of all his options by the trial court. We hold that the trial court properly construed the defendant's actions in this regard as a waiver of the right to counsel.
Evidence of events that occurred in Utah was admitted at the trial. The defendant contends that the admission of this evidence was error. W...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Romero
...to do so. The refusal to accept the services of counsel here amounted to an implied voluntary waiver of counsel. People v. Litsey, 192 Colo. 19, 23, 555 P.2d 974, 977 (1976). The circumstances also demonstrate that the defendant's desire to waive counsel was predicated on an understanding o......
-
People v. Chavez
...the defendant admits the he has been convicted as alleged, no further proof thereof is required. Section 16-13-103(3). People v. Litsey, 192 Colo. 19, 555 P.2d 974 (1976). If the defendant denies that he has previously been convicted as alleged, the jury impaneled to try the substantive off......
-
People v. Quintana
...occurred. See, e.g., United States v. Daly, 974 F.2d 1215, 1217 (9th Cir.1992); Czemerynski, 786 P.2d at 1109; People v. Litsey, 192 Colo. 19, 23, 555 P.2d 974, 977 (1976); Collins v. State, 304 Ark. 587, 804 S.W.2d 680, 682 (1991). Such evidence is generally "linked in time and circumstanc......
-
People v. Mason, 81SA48
...defendant made a request of the court to change his formal denial of the prior convictions to a plea of admission, cf. People v. Litsey, 192 Colo. 19, 555 P.2d 974 (1976); nor does the record show the defendant ever requested the court to withdraw the habitual criminal counts from the jury.......
-
Colorado's Habitual Criminal Act: an Overview
...33. See, Maestas v. District Court, 189 Colo. 443, 541 P.2d 889 (1975). *34. See, C.R.S. 1973, § 16-13-103(3). See also, People v. Litsey, 192 Colo. 19, 555 P.2d 974 (1976); Hahn, supra, note 21; Smalley, supra, note 30. *35. C.R.S. 1973, § 16-13-103(1). See, Brown v. People, 124 Colo. 412,......