State v. Clifford
| Decision Date | 17 January 1964 |
| Docket Number | No. 39303,39303 |
| Citation | 126 N.W.2d 258,267 Minn. 554 |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
| Parties | STATE of Minnesota, Respondent, v. John Francis CLIFFORD, Jr., Appellant. |
Edward M. Glennon, Minneapolis, for appellant.
Walter F. Mondale, Atty. Gen., St. Paul, George Scott, County Atty., Theodore R. Rix, Asst. County Atty., Minneapolis, for respondent.
On May 6, 1963, defendant pleaded guilty to the crime of burglary in the third degree. He was represented by the public defender of Hennepin County. Sentence to The State Prison in Stillwater was imposed. Prior to expiration of the time for appeal and upon application of the defendant, who claimed to be an indigent, Edward M. Glennon, a Minneapolis attorney, was appointed to assist him in securing a review of the conviction and appeal to this court was perfected.
Application is now made by the attorney for the defendant for an order of this court directing the issuance of subpoenas for the purpose of making a record to be used in support of defendant's contention that he was motivated to enter a plea of guilty because of evidence illegally obtained and a confession which was not freely and voluntarily given. The application is opposed by the county attorney for Hennepin County.
To grant defendant's request for an order directing the issuance of subpoenas and to review the contemplated depositions would be to assume the duty of deciding a fact question which should first be presented to and determined by the district court from which the appeal is taken. Ordinarily, this is not a proper function of an appellate tribunal and the application is therefore denied.
The better procedure is for defendant to apply to the district court for an order vacating the judgment of conviction and authorizing and permitting withdrawal of the plea of guilty. See, 5 Dunnell, Dig. (3 ed.) § 2444; State v. McDonnell, 165 Minn. 423, 206 N.W. 952; 14 Am.Jur., Criminal Law, §§ 286, 288; Annotation, 146 A.L.R. 1430. Whether such an order will issue must depend upon the showing made by defendant in support of his application. If he is able to establish prima facie that he did in fact enter a plea of guilty because of a genuine misapprehension of his legal position and his constitutional rights, the application will no doubt be granted and the admissibility of the confession and of the evidence obtained as a result of the search and seizure can then be determined in the proper forum, perhaps by a motion to suppress....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Richter
...has recently recognized a prisoner's right to withdraw a plea of guilty induced by illegally obtained evidence, in State v. Clifford, 267 Minn. 554, 126 N.W.2d 258, where we remanded the proceedings for a determination of whether an involuntary confession had prompted the plea. We therefore......
-
State v. Linehan
...this court will be deferred until the district court has had opportunity to consider these aspects of the matter. See, State v. Clifford, 267 Minn. 554, 126 N.W.2d 258. Remanded for further 1 Hurtado v. People of State of California, 110 U.S. 516, 538, 4 S.Ct. 111, 122, 28 L.Ed. 232, 239, p......
-
State v. Clifford
...of proving that defendant's plea of guilty was induced by illegally obtained evidence and an involuntary confession. State v. Clifford, 267 Minn. 554, 126 N.W.2d 258. We remanded for a determination of whether defendant entered his plea under a 'genuine misapprehension of his legal position......
-
State ex rel. Kier v. Tahash
...been made under a genuine misapprehension of his legal rights. See, State v. Linehan, 276 Minn. 349, 150 N.W.2d 203; State v. Clifford, 267 Minn. 554, 126 N.W.2d 258. 4. The facts brought out in the presentence examination appear to fall short of what is required to establish guilt of the c......