Southard, In re, 1241
| Decision Date | 01 February 1966 |
| Docket Number | No. 1241,1241 |
| Citation | 217 A.2d 49,125 Vt. 405 |
| Parties | In re James SOUTHARD. |
| Court | Vermont Supreme Court |
Parker, Ainsworth & Richards, Springfield, for petitioner.
J. Thomas Moore, State's Atty., Wilmington, for the State.
Before HOLDEN, C. J., SHANGRAW, BARNEY and KEYSER, JJ., and O'BRIEN, Superior Judge.
Opinion Filed February 1, 1966
The petitioner brought his petition for a writ of habeas corpus before the Windsor County Court. Following a hearing by the court, findings of fact were made and an order issued dismissing the petition. The petitioner has appealed to this Court for a review of the action of the trial court.
The history of this matter, as revealed by the findings of fact is as follows: On March 4, 1964, the petitioner was arraigned in the Brattleboro Municipal Court on a charge of breaking and entering in the nighttime, and on a further charge of robbery. Bail was fixed on the two charges and the petitioner was committed to the county jail at Newfane.
On March 6, 1964, Timothy J. O'Connor, Esq., was appointed counsel for the petitioner and a plea of not guilty was made in the municipal court to both charges. On March 13, 1964, the petitioner was again in the municipal court at which time he changed his pleas from not guilty to those of not guilty by reason of insanity.
On March 17, 1964, Mr. Southard was transferred from the county jail at Newfane to the Vermont State Hospital for observation. He remained in the hospital under observation until April 9, 1964, at which time he was returned to the county jail at Newfane. While no evidence was introduced as to the result of the petitioner's examination at the Vermont State Hospital, subsequent proceedings would indicate that he was found to be sane.
On April 10, 1964, the petition was again brought before the Brattleboro Municipal Court, at which time he conferred at length with his attorneys, Mr. O'Connor and Mr. Edward John, a law partner of Mr. O'Connor, concerning the disposition of the two charges pending against him. The cases were continued to April 13, 1964.
On April 13, 1964, the petitioner again appeared in the Municipal court with his attorney, Timothy J. O'Connor, and advised the court that he would stand on his previous pleas of not guilty by reason of insanity.
On April 22, 1964, the petitioner again appeared in the municipal court with at torney Edward John. At this time petitioner withdrew his plea of not guilty to the charges of burglary in the nighttime, and robbery, and through his attorney entered a plea of guilty to each charge. The court imposed a sentence of not less than two years not more than four years on the charge of burglary in the nighttime, and a sentence of not less than three years nor more than seven years on the charge of robeefry. The record reveals that the sentences were to run concurrently.
The findings indicate that the petitioner had previously appeared as a respondent on several occasions in other jurisdictions. It appears that he was not unfamiliar with criminal proceedings at the time of this arraignment.
It is the contention of the petitioner that he did not acquiesce to the pleas of guilty entered on his behalf by attorney John, nor was he allowed an opportunity to speak on his own behalf at the time such pleas were made. In substance, it is argued that such pleas entered by his attorney, and not by petitioner personally, are of no effect.
Petitioner calls attention to 13 V.S.A. § 7002, which reads:
'A person shall not be punished for an offense unless by confession of his guilt in open court, or by admitting the truth of the charge against him by his plea or demurrer, or by the verdict of a jury accepted by the court and recorded, or by the judgment of a justice or municipal court when the respondent waives trial by jury.'
In construing the above statutory provision the petitioner contends that there is no provision for a confession of guilt in open court by another, be it an attorney or otherwise.
In further support of his claim that one accused of a criminal offense has a right to be personally heard on the critical matter of his own guilt, the petitioner refers to Article 10th of Chapter I of the Vermont Constitution which in part reads:
'That in all prosecutions for criminal offenses, a person hath a right to be heard by himself and his counsel; * * *.'
It is the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lamphere, In re
...in allowing his plea of guilty to stand, holds him to its consequences. In re Garceau, 125 Vt. 185, 187, 212 A.2d 633; In re Southard, 125 Vt. 405, 408, 217 A.2d 49; In re Baldwin (April 1, 1969), 252 A.2d 539, Judgment affirmed. ...
-
Bentley, In re
...indicates that the court had these two documents before it while addressing the defendant. This Court held, in In re Southard, 125 Vt. 405, 407-08, 217 A.2d 49, 51 (1966), that the defendant need not enter the plea himself but that his attorney may do so in his presence. Accord D'Allesandro......
-
State v. Kalis
...of its legal effect, as well as its consequences, is conclusive. Petition of Garceau, 125 Vt. 185, 188, 212 A.2d 633; In re Southard, 125 Vt. 405, 408, 217 A.2d 49. The record of the proceedings below fails to disclose any points, legal or factual, capable of sustaining valid argument on ap......