Sloan v. State

• Decision Date: 01 April 1933
• Docket Number: A-8501.
• Citation: Sloan v. State, 20 P.2d 917, 54 Okla. Crim. 324 (Okla. Crim. App. 1933)
• Parties: SLOAN v. STATE.
• Court: United States State Court of Appeals of Oklahoma. Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

20 P.2d 917

54 Okla.Crim. 324

SLOAN v. STATE.

No. A-8501.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

April 1, 1933

Syllabus by the Court.

1. The granting or denying of permission to withdraw a plea of guilty either before or after judgment, and to substitute a plea of not guilty, is a matter within the sound discretion of the trial court.

2. Refusal to permit withdrawal of plea of guilty of felony is abuse of discretion, where plea was influenced by persons in apparent authority creating belief punishment would be thereby mitigated; refusal of application to withdraw guilty plea of theft of domestic fowls after sentence held abuse of discretion.

Appeal from District Court, Pawnee County; Thurman S. Hurst, Judge.

Frank Sloan was convicted of theft of domestic fowls, and he appeals.

Reversed with instructions.

Bailey E. Bell and Gerald B. Klein, both of Tulsa, for plaintiff in error.

J Berry King, Atty. Gen., and Smith C. Matson, Ass't Atty Gen., for the State.

EDWARDS Presiding Judge.

The plaintiff in error, hereinafter called defendant, was convicted on his plea of guilty in the district court of Pawnee county of theft of domestic fowls, and his punishment fixed at a term of 4 1/2 years in the penitentiary.

Defendant was arrested under suspicious circumstances, was incarcerated in jail over night, and the following day was taken to the office of the assistant county attorney and there questioned at length. The following day he was again questioned, and he contends that under a promise of a short sentence he was induced to agree to enter a plea of guilty, although he informed the county attorney and his assistant that he wanted to call an attorney, but that he was informed if he did so he would be prosecuted on eight cases and that the maximum punishment might be 40 years; that he was made to believe his punishment would be very much less if he entered a plea of guilty. After sentence was passed, defendant called an attorney and filed his motion and amended motion to withdraw his plea of guilty and to enter a plea of not guilty. After a hearing, this was denied. The only contention made is that the court erred and abused his discretion in denying this motion.

The general rule of law as stated by numerous decisions of this and other courts is that an application to withdraw a plea of guilty is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court; that the law favors the trial of criminal cases on the merits and where it reasonably appears a plea of guilty was influenced by persons in authority or apparent authority which has led a defendant to believe that by entering a plea of guilty his punishment will be thereby mitigated he should be permitted to withdraw the plea of guilty and to enter a plea of not guilty and the refusal to permit him to do so is an abuse of discretion. Jenkins v. State, 6 Okl. Cr. 516, 120 P. 298; Polk v. State, 26 Okl. Cr. 283, 224 P. 194; Hart v. State, 29 Okl. Cr. 414, 233 P. 1095; Howington v. State, 30 Okl. Cr. 243, 235 P. 931; Cook v. State (Okl. Cr. App.) 281 P. 819; Logenbaugh v. State (Okl. Cr. App.) 288 P. 611; Kelley v. State (Okl. Cr. App.) 288 P. 1001.

Defendant in support of his application to withdraw the plea of guilty, testified at some length and in substance that he was first questioned by the sheriff and was then taken to the office of the assistant county attorney, and was there further questioned as to his guilt and that of his codefendants, and was told that, if he would "come clean" and would plead guilty, he would receive a light punishment, which he was led to believe would be 60 days in jail and a fine; that later the county attorney told defendant if he did not plead guilty he would prosecute him to the fullest extent of the law and would file separate charges which would carry a maximum of 40 years in the penitentiary. At the conversation with the county attorney the prosecuting witness was also present.

The sheriff was called as a witness by the state, and in his testimony admits he told defendant "* * * that if he would tell me the facts in this case about Harbison's chickens and if there was anybody else connected with him, I would give him some leniency in this case. * * *"

In reference to the punishment, he further testified that the assistant county attorney read the law to defendant; that the minimum was 60 days and $100 and the maximum 5 years. The prosecuting witness, Harbison, called for the state, on cross-examination said:

"Mr. Harbison, you stated that Mr. Mitchell told him that if they would plead guilty, he would only file one case against them? A. Yes, sir.

Q. What did he tell them he would do if they didn't plead guilty? A. He told...