Snodgrass v. State, A--15525

• Decision Date: 02 December 1970
• Docket Number: No. A--15525,A--15525
• Citation: 478 P.2d 965
• Parties: Clifford J. SNODGRASS and Floyd Kirk, Plaintiffs in Error, v. The STATE of Oklahoma, Defendant in Error.
• Court: United States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

Page 965

478 P.2d 965

Clifford J. SNODGRASS and Floyd Kirk, Plaintiffs in Error, v. The STATE of Oklahoma, Defendant in Error.

No. A--15525.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma.

Dec. 2, 1970.

Appeal from the District Court of Adair County; E. G. Carroll, Judge.

Clifford J. Snodgrass and Floyd Kirk each entered pleas of guilty to crimes of: Conjoint Robbery, Forgery Second Degree, and Larceny of an Automobile; each was sentenced to 25 years for Conjoint Robbery and 5 years for each other conviction, all sentences to run concurrently; and appeal jointly. Judgments and Sentences for Forgery and Larceny Affirmed, Judgment and Sentence for Conjoint Robbery Modified to 10 years and as modified, affirmed; all three judgments and sentences to run concurrently. As Modified, Judgment and Sentence Affirmed.

Gene F. Mowery, Stilwell, for plaintiff in error.

G. T. Blankenship, Atty. Gen., Jack Pratt, Asst. Atty. Gen., for defendant in error.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

BRETT, Presiding Judge.

The defendants in error, Clifford J. Snodgrass and Floyd Kirk, hereafter referred to as defendants, were jointly charged in Adair County with three crimes, to-wit: (1) Case no. 2017, conjoint robbery of a victim named Fuson; (2) case no. 2016, forgery in the second degree; (3) case no. 2018, larceny of an automobile.

Upon pleas of guilty entered by each defendant to each respective charge, the Honorable E. G. Carroll, Judge of the District Court of Adair County, sentenced each defendant to 25 years in the penitentiary on the charge of conjoint robbery; and defendants were sentenced to five years on each of the other two charges, the sentences to run concurrently with the others.

At the sentencing the charge of conjoint robbery was read to the defendants by the county attorney; and, following the arraignments on the two additional charges, the county attorney recommended that the sentences therein be made to run concurrently with the first one. At the same time the recommendation was made by the county attorney, he explained to the court the aggravated nature of the offense and showed the court a statement by the victim's doctor as to the severity of the injuries suffered by the victim.

After defendants were transported to the penitentiary, they petitioned this Court for a writ of habeas corpus, each alleging: that they were severely beaten by officers after their arrest; denied access to counsel; waived preliminary hearing without the benefit of counsel, upon advice of the county attorney; signed a coerced confession without benefit of counsel; entered a plea of guilty without benefit of counsel; that they were not advised of their constitutional right to appeal.

Because of the allegations in defendants' petitions for writs of habeas corpus, this Court ordered an evidentiary hearing to be conducted by the trial court, and to make findings of fact on the issues raised by defendants' petitions. Upon review of these proceedings the following facts were ascertained, to-wit:

The defendants were charged July 9, 1963 before Justice of the Peace Howard Waller; each defendant was allowed 24 hours to enter his plea; each defendant waived preliminary hearing; and each defendant was bound over for trial on the charges.

At the District Court arraignment the defendants were advised of their constitutional rights, including their rights to counsel; to a jury trial; to examine the evidence. Each of the defendants waived his right to counsel and his right to a jury trial, and thereafter, each defendant entered his own plea of guilty.

The transcript of the evidentiary hearing revealed no evidence of coercion, nor any indication that the pleas were coerced; instead, the record showed such pleas to have been voluntarily entered so the court entered the findings that the defendants entered their respective pleas of guilty freely and voluntarily and that the trial court had jurisdiction to impose judgment and sentence.

That record also showed that the court did advise each of the defendants of his right to appeal from the judgment and sentence imposed by the court, but the court failed to advise defendants that they had a right to have counsel perfect the appeal at state expense, if they were declared indigent. See Copenhaver v. State, Okl.Cr., 431 P.2d 669 (1967); Wynn v. Page (C.C.A.10th Cir.), 369 F.2d 930, which requires appointment of counsel for appeal.

Thereafter, on the 30th day of July, 1969, this Court granted the defendants herein their right to appeal, in accordance with 22 O.S.Supp., 1968, § 1073, and Rule 25, of the Rules of this Court.

Defendants' positions in this appeal are that at the time of sentencing, the county attorney withheld information favorable to the defendants in violation of his obligation of full disclosure of matters of that nature; and, although urging complete reversal of their convictions, they also rely upon that allegation in order to urge modification of the sentence, contending that their sentences are excessive. We do not accept the defendants' position now attempting a denial of their pleas of guilty on the forgery charge, nor on the charge of larceny of an automobile; nor do we comprehend their efforts on this appeal to urge a new trial on those charges. In view of all facts before the Court, we refuse to interfere with the sentences in those two cases, either as to the voluntariness of their pleas, or as to the terms of punishment assessed.

Defendants' allegations that the trial court was without jurisdiction to try them on the robbery charge because of venue, is not substantiated. Defendants cannot now come into this Court and assert that the robbery was committed in some other county.

When defendants entered pleas of guilty to the robbery charge at their arraignment, they waived any question concerning venue; and submitted themselves to the jurisdiction of the court. In...