State v. Coston
| Decision Date | 05 December 1904 |
| Docket Number | 15,405 |
| Citation | 113 La. 717,37 So. 619 |
| Court | Louisiana Supreme Court |
| Parties | STATE v. COSTON |
Appeal from Twelfth Judicial District Court, Parish of De Soto; John Bachman Lee, Judge.
Clem Coston was convicted of petty larceny, and appeals. Reversed.
Charles Wheaton Elam, for appellant.
Walter Guion, Atty. Gen., and Amos Lee Ponder, Dist. Atty. (Lewis Guion, of counsel), for the State.
On the 6th of October, 1904, the grand jury brought in an indictment against the defendant for larceny.
The minutes of the following day show as follows:
"The defendant, Clem Coston, in open court, assisted by his counsel, W. C. Pegues, Esq., waived arraignment, and pleaded not guilty, elected to be tried by jury, and case fixed for Wednesday, the 12th inst."
The minutes of the 12th of October show as follows:
"The defendant, Clem Coston, assisted by his counsel, Wm. C Pegues, Esq., in open court, withdrew his plea of not guilty and pleaded guilty to petty larceny."
Six days thereafter, namely, on the 18th day of the same month, defendant made the following motion:
This motion was sworn to by the defendant, and was accompanied by the following affidavit of his former attorney, Wm. C Pegues:
"Affidavit Attached to Motion to Vacate.
State of Louisiana, Parish of De Soto. Before me, the undersigned authority, personally came and appeared Wm. C. Pegues attorney at law, who, being by me first duly sworn, deposes and says: That he was never authorized by one Clem Coston, who was recently indicted by the grand jury of this parish for the crime of larceny, to enter the plea of larceny or petit larceny, which the minutes of the 12th Judicial District Court in and for the parish of De Soto, La., show that he did not enter such a plea for the said Coston on the 12th day of this month. He further says that the said Coston authorized him to enter a plea to any crime that might be a misdemeanor, and that at the time he entered the plea of guilty of petit larceny he (the said Pegues) was under the impression that petit larceny was a misdemeanor instead of a possible felony.
[Signed] Wm. C. Pegues.
Sworn to and subscribed before me on this 14th day of October, A. D. 1904.
The motion was overruled, and to the ruling defendant reserved a bill of exceptions.
Whereupon the court sentenced the defendant to 18 months in the penitentiary, and he has appealed.
His contention is that, the plea of guilty having been induced by error, he should have been permitted to withdraw it. He also contends that the record does not show that he was present in court when the plea was entered.
If the court accepts as true the oath of the defendant -- and it is hardly seen on what grounds the court could decline to accept it -- the plea of guilty to the crime of larceny was entered without the consent of the defendant, inasmuch as the consent was limited to such a plea as would not subject him to imprisonment in the penitentiary. Such being the case, the plea should have been set aside, and defendant permitted to plead over.
The affidavit derives much corroboration from the fact that the plea, as entered on the minutes, was not one simply of guilty as charged in the indictment, but was one of guilty to petit larceny.
In the case of State v. Williams, 45 La.Ann. 1357, 14 So. 32, this court said:
"The withdrawal of the plea of guilty should not be denied in any case where it is in the least evident that the ends of justice will be subserved by permitting not guilty to be pleaded in its place.
It is proper to grant the withdrawal if the accused makes it appear that an error has been committed.
The least surprise or influence causing him to plead guilty when he had any defense at all should be sufficient cause to permit a change of the plea from guilty to not guilty."
The instant case can be differentiated from those of State v Delahoussaye, 37 La.Ann. 551, and State v. Williams, 45 La.Ann. 1356, 14 So. 32. In the instant case the accused accepted the certainty of conviction of what he took to be a minor...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Nick v. Travelers Ins. Co.
...... death benefit provision. Williams v. Aetna Life Ins. Co. (Mo. App.), 154 S.W.2d 426. The plaintiff pleaded one. state of facts as her cause of action, namely an alleged. right to recover for total disability benefits, and attempted. to recover under the life ......
-
State v. Arnold
...... is an abuse of the court's discretion to deny said. motion. ( State v. Raponi, 32 Idaho 368, 182 P. 855;. 16 C. J. 397, sec. 730; State v. Nicholas, 46 Mont. 470, 128 P. 543; City of Salina v. Cooper, 45 Kan. 12, 25 P. 233; State v. Coston, 113 La. 717, 37 So. 619; State v. Williams, 45 La. Ann. 1356, 14 So. 32;. Krolage v. People, 224 Ill. 456, 8 Ann. Cas. 235, 79. N.E. 570; Deloach v. State, 77 Miss. 691, 27 So. 618; Gauldin v. Crawford, 30 Ga. 674; Dobosky v. State, 183 Ind. 488, 109 N.E. 742; People v. McCrory, ......
-
Nick v. Travelers Ins. Co.
......Williams v. Aetna Life Ins. Co. (Mo. App.), 154 S.W. (2d) 426. The plaintiff pleaded one state of facts as her cause of action, namely an alleged right to recover for total disability benefits, and attempted to recover under the life provision. ......
-
State v. Hamilton
......16 C. J. 399, sec. 731; Sunday v. State, 14 Mo. 417. Under the above rule has been said. that the least surprise or influence causing him to plead. guilty when he had any defense at all, should be sufficient. cause to permit a change of the plea from guilty to not. guilty. State v. Coston, 113 La. 717; State v. Williams, 45 La. 1357; Crolage v. People, 224. Ill. 456. Where a plea of guilty in a murder case has been. entered by the prisoner through fear that he would be hanged. by a mob, he should be allowed to withdraw the plea after. sentence. Sanders v. State, 85 Ind. 318; ......