Sherbondy v. District Court In and For Eagle County, 24079
| Decision Date | 29 September 1969 |
| Docket Number | No. 24079,24079 |
| Citation | 170 Colo. 114,459 P.2d 133 |
| Parties | James B. SHERBONDY, Petitioner, v. The DISTRICT COURT IN AND FOR the COUNTY OF EAGLE and the State of Colorado, Respondent. |
| Court | Colorado Supreme Court |
James B. Sherbondy, pro se, petitioner.
Duke W. Dunbar, Atty. Gen., John P. Moore, Deputy Atty. Gen., Robert L. Hoecker, Asst. Atty. Gen., Denver, Colo., for respondent.
This is an original proceeding for a writ in the nature of mandamus to require the district court of Eagle County to furnish petitioner Sherbondy a transcript of his arraignment proceedings and trial. We issued an order to show cause why the transcript should not be furnished. The Attorney General has responded for the district court, and the matter is now at issue.
Sherbondy has been attempting to represent himself both in the trial court and in this court. He has not asked the trial court to appoint counsel. Added to this is the fact that Sherbondy was convicted 32 years ago. Reviewing the situation In toto, we find that we are thus confronted with a rather beclouded and fuzzy picture as to the precise nature of the relief sought by the petitioner.
From the allegation of the pro se petition, supplemented by the response of the People, we are informed that Sherbondy entered a plea of guilty to the charge of murder, and a jury was impaneled to determine whether it be in the first or second degree. Sherbondy was 17 years old at the time and was represented by retained counsel. A jury on December 20, 1937, returned a verdict of first degree murder. Because of his age, Sherbondy could not be given any penalty other than life imprisonment, and he was so sentenced by the court.
Sherbondy first petitioned the trial court on November 15, 1957, for a free transcript of the proceedings surrounding his arraignment and trial. This was denied. He waited approximately ten years, and on May 8, 1967, filed a 'Motion for Stenographic Transcript of Proceedings and Common Law Records.' This was denied. On April 23, 1968, a motion under Colo.R.Crim.P. 35(b) was filed with the trial court, and summarily denied. No appeal to the denial of that motion has been taken by Sherbondy.
We are not unmindful of our pronouncements in Peirce v. People, 158 Colo. 81, 404 P.2d 843, and Carr v. District Court, 157 Colo. 226, 402 P.2d 182. Sherbondy has not made the showing which we said in those cases should be made which would entitle him to a free transcript. However, Sherbondy's case, we believe, is unique, and in the particular situation involved here a rigid adherence to Peirce and Carr would unduly handicap Sherbondy and be particularly harsh on him. As has been noted, at the time of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Jurgevich v. District Court, Routt County, Colo., 95SA237
...Jurgevich failed to set forth an adequate basis for obtaining the transcript. The exception established in Sherbondy v. District Court, 170 Colo. 114, 459 P.2d 133 (1969), does not apply in this case. In Sherbondy, we excused the general requirements for obtaining a free transcript in a col......
-
People v. Salvador, 26334
...cases, this court has examined convictions when substantial periods of time have elapsed since conviction. Sherbondy v. District Court, 170 Colo. 114, 459 P.2d 133 (1969); Walker v. People, 160 Colo. 286, 417 P.2d 14 (1966); Walker v. People, 169 Colo. 467, 458 P.2d 238 We have been limited......
-
Valdez v. District Court for Pueblo County
...See Peirce v. People, 158 Colo. 81, 404 P.2d 843. Although the rules in Carr and Peirce were relaxed in the case of Sherbondy v. District Court, Colo., 459 P.2d 133, because of extraordinary circumstances, there is no allegation in the instant petition that would make applicable the Sherbon......