State ex rel. Burnett v. Burke
Decision Date | 04 February 1964 |
Citation | 22 Wis.2d 486,126 N.W.2d 91 |
Parties | STATE of Wisconsin ex rel. Clarence BURNETT, Petitioner, v. John C. BURKE, Warden of Wisconsin State Prison, Respondent. |
Court | Wisconsin Supreme Court |
Lloyd A. Barbee, Milwaukee, for petitioner.
George Thompson, Atty. Gen., Wm. A. Platz, Asst. Atty. Gen., Madison, for respondent.
On October 16, 1945, Clarence Burnett was convicted of the murder of one Charles DeLuca. DeLuca was slain on October 13, 1945, and the petitioner was apprehended the next day, October 14, 1945, at St. Joseph, Michigan. Burnett waived extradition and was returned to Wisconsin on October 15, 1945, with two co-defendants. On October 16, 1945, he was taken before court commissioner Eugene L. Haley, where he waived preliminary hearing and was bound over to the circuit court for Racine county for trial. At the trial on that same day, October 16, 1945, he entered his plea of guilty and was sentenced to life imprisonment and was taken to the Wisconsin state prison at Waupun.
Burnett petitioned this court on March 1, 1963, and by order dated March 15, 1963, this court ordered that the record be referred to the circuit court for Racine county to hear and determine the issues of fact presented by the petition and the state's return to such petition.
Pursuant to such order by this court, the circuit court, Judge Clair Voss presiding, held a hearing on May 16, 1963, at Racine. Some 182 pages of testimony were taken at the hearing, and a number of exhibits were received. Thereafter, Judge Voss prepared amended findings of fact dated July 16, 1963, which have been filed in this court.
Burnett was convicted on his plea of guilty to the charge of first degree murder, then a violation of sec. 340.02, Stats. Certain important witnesses are now deceased. These include Herman Koelbel, district attorney at the time of the petitioner's trial in 1945, Robert J. Matheson, sheriff of Racine county at the time of the trial in 1945, and Eugene L. Haley, the court commissioner who presided at the preliminary hearing of the petitioner in 1945. However, the presiding judge at the petitioner's trial, Alfred Drury, was present and gave testimony, as did Louis Hardy, who had served as assistant district attorney of Racine county in 1945.
The petition for the writ of habeas corpus contains, among others, the following allegations:
'3. That your petitioner was advised by the Assistant District Attorney of Racine County, one Louis Hardy, that if he were to cooperate with the State by pleading guilty as charged and by relinquishing his right to counsel, he would be released from prison in a few years.
'4. That your petitioner was further advised by the Assistant District Attorney that he should refuse to accept a court appointed defense attorney; that a lawyer couldn't do him any good; that emotions in the local community had risen so high against your petitioner that his safety could not be guaranteed by the authorities; and that therefore the sooner the trial was completed, the better it would be for your petitioner and all concerned.
'5. That your petitioner, upon advice of the Assistant District Attorney, informed the Judge that he did not desire the assistance of a court appointed attorney.
'6. That your petitioner was indigent at the time of the criminal proceedings against him.
'7. That your petitioner was told by the Sheriff of Racine County, one Robert J. Matheson, that a mob was forming around the jail so your petitioner and his co-defendant should agree to a speedy trial in order to be transferred to a safer place of confinement.
The following is a portion of the transcript of the proceedings which occurred on October 16, 1945, in the circuit court for Racine county:
The amended findings of fact submitted by Judge Voss either negate the contentions of the petitioner as set forth in his application for a writ or conclude that there is insufficient available proof upon which to base findings. The difficulty confronting Judge Voss in making more precise findings is understandable; over seventeen years had passed since the date of the event and several of the germane witnesses had died.
In paragraph numbered eight of his findings, Judge Voss asserted the following:
While the record does not contain any independent proof that Burnett was put in fear, it does contain some affirmative support for the contention that there was public concern about the possibility of mob violence. Father Labaj and Mr. Foxx testified to this effect. Unless somehow communicated to the accused, the potentiality of mob violence would not be a factor in causing the waiver of counsel to be involuntary.
In Moore v. Michigan (1957), 355 U.S. 155, 78 S.Ct. 191, 2 L.Ed.2d 167, a seventeen-year-old defendant of limited education and poor intelligence, who was charged with first degree murder in Michigan, was permitted to plead guilty after a brief hearing. There was evidence in the Moore Case that the sheriff informed the accused of the mob tension which existed. It was held that Moore's waiver of his right to counsel was not consistent with his constitutional rights.
The record in the instant case supports the petitioner's contention as to his limited formal education and his I. Q. ratings. These circumstances led Judge Voss to conclude in finding numbered ten that Burnett was of 'subnormal intelligence.'
The most significant factor in persuading us that the judgment and sentence must be vacated is the transcript quoted above which evidences an inadequate protection of Burnett's right to counsel at the time he was brought before the circuit court in 1945. The transcript itself, without the benefit of any further fact finding, reflects the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Cummings
...a judge must investigate as long and as thoroughly as the circumstances of the case before him demand. State ex rel. Burnett v. Burke, 22 Wis.2d 486, 492, 126 N.W.2d 91 (1964) (quoting von Moltke v. Gillies, 332 U.S. 708, 723, 68 S.Ct. 316, 323, 92 L.Ed. 309 (1948)) (quoting Johnson v. Zerb......
-
State v. Sisco
...725; Woods v. Rhay, 68 Wash.2d 601, 414 P.2d 601, 604; State v. Harrell, 40 Wis.2d 187, 161 N.W.2d 223, 227; State ex rel. Burnett v. Burke, 22 Wis.2d 486, 126 N.W.2d 91, 95--96; and editor's statement, 97 A.L.R.2d 549, We are persuaded and now hold, when a guilty plea is entered by defenda......
-
State v. Jenkins
...overruled the Strickland "assumption" and mandated that the circuit courts follow the practice suggested in State ex rel. Burnett v. Burke, 22 Wis.2d 486, 494, 126 N.W.2d 91 (1964). Ernst, 43 Wis.2d at 674, 170 N.W.2d 713. The court mandated that circuit courts have a duty to do the followi......
-
State v. Bangert
...if a pauper, counsel will be provided at no expense to him, Ernst, 43 Wis.2d at 674, 170 N.W.2d 713 (citing State ex rel. Burnett v. Burke, 22 Wis.2d 486, 494, 126 N.W.2d 91 (1964)); and (6) To personally ascertain whether a factual basis exists to support the plea. Id. In this case Bangert......
-
Cognitive Restructuring Through Law: a Therapeutic Jurisprudence Approach to Sex Offenders and the Plea Process
...ill." 21. Acceptance of pleas of guilty or nolo contendere at this early stage has been criticized. State ex rel. Burnett v. Burke, 126 N.W.2d 91, 95-96 (Wis. 22. Even when a defendant refuses to plead guilty and thus goes to trial, the issues related to denial do not end. For example, in G......