State v. Coble

• Decision Date: 15 February 1962
• Parties: , 25 O.O.2d 93 The STATE of Ohio, Appellee, v. COBLE, Appellant.
• Court: Ohio Court of Appeals

Page 258

118 Ohio App. 258

194 N.E.2d 64, 25 O.O.2d 93

The STATE of Ohio, Appellee, v. COBLE, Appellant.

Court of Appeals of Ohio, Second District, Montgomery County.

Feb. 15, 1962.

Jack H. Patricoff, Dayton, for appellant.

Paul R. Young, Pros. Atty., for appellee.

KERNS, Judge.

On March 3, 1961, the defendant, Paul Edward Coble, who was charged by information with the offense of grand larceny, signed waivers which are countersigned by the trial judge and which provide as follows:

'I, Paul Edward Coble, the defendant in the above cause being now in open court, fully understand that under the laws of this state I have a right to be represented by counsel, and do hereby affirmatively waive my right to be represented by counsel.'

'I, Paul Edward Coble, the above-named defendant, accused of violation of Section 2907.20 Revised Code of Ohio, towit: a criminal offense which is not punishable by death or life imprisonment, having been advised by the court of the nature of the charge against me, and of my rights under the Constitution, hereby waive, in writing and in open court, prosecution by indictment and request and consent that the charge proceed by information instead of by indictment.

'A copy of the proposed information has been furnished me.'

On the same day, the defendant entered a plea of guilty to the charge.

On July 8, 1961, the family of the defendant engaged the services of an attorney who on July 10, 1961, filed an application which, in substance, requests probation. In support of this application, it is stated, among other things, that 'counsel for defendant is not attempting to attack the plea of guilty which was previously entered by the said defendant pursuant to the information on March 3, 1961, but feels that on behalf of the defendant and on behalf of his family he would desire to submit facts bearing upon the question of adequate consideration of probation of said defendant.'

On August 25, 1961, defendant's counsel filed a supplemental application and motion which states:

'Now comes the defendant, Paul Edward Coble, through his attorney and submits this supplemental application and motion for a new trial, and moves the court for the following:

'(1) For an order to grant him a new trial '(2) And that he be allowed to withdraw his former plea of 'guilty' and enter his plea of 'not guilty' to the pending information filed herein: and to have said alleged offense examined by the Grand Jury of Montgomery County, Ohio.

'(3) To assign this case for trial on its merits and to permit the defendant to be represented by counsel, whereby the defendant would be properly advised as to his rights in this case, and to have explained to him the nature of the charge pending against him by his own counsel.'

By entry dated August 28, 1961, the trial court granted leave to the defendant to withdraw his former plea of guilty, and thereafter, the case proceeded to trial upon the information. No bill of exceptions has been filed herein, but the jury verdict finding the defendant guilty of the charge is a matter of record.

On October 23, 1961, the trial court entered judgment upon the verdict and sentenced the defendant to the Ohio State Reformatory for a period of not less than one nor more than seven years. From such judgment and sentence, an appeal has been perfected...