Pickett v. State of Oklahoma
Citation | 404 F. Supp. 1157 |
Decision Date | 30 July 1975 |
Docket Number | No. CIV-75-0334-D.,CIV-75-0334-D. |
Parties | Tommy L. PICKETT, #85893, Petitioner, v. The STATE OF OKLAHOMA et al., Respondents. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Oklahoma |
Tommy L. Pickett, pro se.
Paul Crowe, Asst. Atty. Gen., Oklahoma City, Okl., for respondents.
This is a proceeding for writ of habeas corpus by the above-named petitioner who is confined in the Oklahoma State Penitentiary at McAlester, Oklahoma. He challenges the validity of the judgments and sentences rendered by the District Court of Oklahoma County, Oklahoma in cases numbered CRF-72-1915, CRF-72-1916, CRF-72-1917 and CRM-72-1449 on the ground that his pleas of guilty in those cases were involuntary. In support of this claim he makes the following affidavit:
It appears from the court's examination of the files and records of the Oklahoma courts submitted by the respondents that the petitioner was charged by Information in the District Court of Oklahoma County as follows:
Case No. CRF-72-1915— Robbery with Firearms Case No. CRF-72-1916— Robbery with Firearms Case No. CRF-72-1917— Assault with a deadly weapon with intent to kill Case No. CRM-72-1449— Possession of marijuana
On November 20, 1972 the petitioner appeared with his court-appointed attorney before the court and entered pleas of guilty to all four charges. Prior to making the pleas he was advised that the maximum punishment provided for the crimes as charged was death and the minimum was imprisonment for five years. He stated that he knew the penalties and understood that he could be sentenced to any term of imprisonment within these limits. After being specifically advised of his right to a jury trial he waived a jury trial. He told the court that he had discussed the charges with his lawyer, had his advice and that his pleas were made of his own free will without any compulsion. He further stated to the court that he had not been abused, mistreated or threatened by anyone and that he was pleading guilty only for the reason that he was guilty. The defense then requested a report from the probation department before sentencing. The foregoing is disclosed by a "Summary of Facts" signed by the Judge, the Assistant District Attorney, the Court Reporter and the mother of the defendant who was present. The petitioner signed a further Addendum to the Summary of Facts as follows:
A probation officer made a comprehensive report to the court which contained the recommendation of the district attorney that the court impose consecutive sentences of 99 years on each of the two robbery charges, 20 years on the assault charge and one year on the marijuana charge. On December 26, 1972, N. Martin Stringer, an attorney who had been privately retained in petitioner's behalf, wrote a lengthy letter to the probation officer detailing the personal history and military service of petitioner. Significantly he stated:
(Emphasis supplied.)
He then summarized:
On January 11, 1973 the cases came on for sentencing with the petitioner present in person and with the Assistant Public Defender and Mr. Stringer. A full transcript of these proceedings was prepared. Mr. Stringer made an extensive statement in mitigation of punishment in which he commented:
"And additionally I think I ought to point out to the Court we submitted it to a presentence report because at the time we could not agree tentatively to a plea of 35 years." (Tr. 6).
At the conclusion of arguments for both sides the court gave the petitioner consecutive sentences of 40 years on each of the robbery charges, 20 years on the assault charge and one year on the marijuana charge.
The petitioner perfected an appeal by Writ of Certiorari to the ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Guyton v. LeFevre
...of this petition. The affidavit must provide some reason for concluding that his claim has not been made up. Cf. Pickett v. Oklahoma, 404 F.Supp. 1157, 1160 (W.D.Okl.1975) (hearing may be denied if allegations are incredible). Respondent should submit any further materials that may exist ev......
-
Com. v. DeMarco
...a defendant's postsentence motion to withdraw his plea. See United States v. Prince, 533 F.2d 205 (5th Cir. 1976); Pickett v. State, 404 F.Supp. 1157 (W.D.Okl.1975); United States v. Cravatas, 330 F.Supp. 91 (D.Conn.1971). "Well established is the rule that the People will be held strictly ......
-
Joachim Memorial Home v. Askew, A1-75-82.
... ... In October of 1972 the Defendant brought an action against the Home in state court for fees he had not been paid; the Home, in turn, counterclaimed for the fees it had already ... ...