State v. Cowan
| Decision Date | 08 July 1946 |
| Docket Number | 29893. |
| Citation | 25 Wn.2d 341,170 P.2d 653 |
| Court | Washington Supreme Court |
| Parties | STATE v. COWAN. |
Department 1
Roy Grant Cowan was convicted of attempted robbery, and from an order denying his motion to vacate the judgment, he appeals.
Affirmed.
Appeal from Superior Court, Kitsap County; E. D. Hodge, judge.
Ralph E. Purves, of Bremerton, for appellant.
Frederick B. Cohen and W. U. Park, both of Bremerton, for respondent.
This is an appeal from the order of the superior court denying a motion to vacate a judgment of conviction in a criminal case.
The motion to vacate the judgment recited that at the time of arraignment, an illegality occurred in the proceedings in that defendant was not advised that he had a right to be represented by an attorney and was thereby deprived of his constitutional right to be represented by counsel at the time he was arraigned.
Defendant also claimed in his motion that he had a valid defense to the crime charged in the information because of the fact that he was so intoxicated at the time of the alleged acts that he did not possess the required intent to attempt a robbery.
A hearing was had upon the motion and the court refused to enter an order vacating the judgment.
His one assignment of error is that the court erred in finding that appellant had been advised of his right to have counsel at the time of his arraignment. At the time of the arraignment, appellant entered a plea of guilty.
The information was filed July 30, 1945. The date of arraignment and plea of guilty was August 6, 1945, and the judgment was entered on the last-mentioned date. Motion to vacate and set aside the judgment was filed November 30, 1945. No appeal was taken from the original judgment.
The evidence presented to the court upon the petition to vacate the judgment was presented orally and by affidavits. The appellant's evidence given by him and a substitute court reporter attempted to show that at the time he was arraigned the court did not fully advise him that he had the right to be represented by an attorney. Appellant's testimony was as follows:
An affidavit presented by Richard Staub, court bailiff, shows that appellant was asked his true name which he gave as Roy Grant Cowan; that the court informed appellant that he was charged with attempted robbery and asked him if he wanted an attorney; that the court also informed the defendant that he had the right to the services of an attorney; that appellant replied that he did not want counsel, and that thereafter the information was read and the appellant entered a plea of guilty.
The prosecuting attorney's affidavit shows that appellant was asked his true name which he gave as Roy Grant Cowan; that the court advised appellant that he had a right to have an attorney; that defendant stated then in open court that he did not want or need an attorney to represent him, whereupon the information was read, the appellant entered a plea of guilty, and was sentenced by the court.
The affidavit of Honorable Edmund Stafford, judge of the superior court of Kitsap county, Before whom appellant was arraigned presented an affidavit which reads in part as follows: 'That the defendant was first asked his true name which he gave as Roy Grant Cowan, whereupon the affiant advised the defendant that he had a right to have an attorney to represent him in this cause; that the defendant informed the affiant that he did not want or need an attorney to represent him; that the Prosecuting Attorney then read to the defendant the information and this affiant asked him if he knew the nature of it, to which he replied that he did; this affiant then asked him whether his plea was guilty or not guilty to which the defendant pleaded guilty; thereupon the Prosecuting Attorney gave a full statement of the case and this affiant then questioned the defendant as to his conduct and the actions...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Coleman v. State
... ... 143. This strong presumption of validity applies to criminal convictions and sentences, which entitles them to every reasonable intendment in their favor. State v. Plum, 14 Utah 2d 124, 378 P.2d 671 (1963); State v. Superior Court, 82 Ariz. 237, 311 P.2d 835 (1957); State v ... Cowan, 25 Wash.2d 341, 170 P.2d 653 (1946); Paul v. State, 177 So.2d 537 (Fla.App.1965); People v. Tannehill, 193 C.A.2d 701, 14 Cal.Rptr. 615 (1961); People v. Crispell, 185 Misc. 800, 60 N.Y.S.2d 85 (1945). See also, Smith & Parker v. State, 194 Ark. 1041, 110 S.W.2d 24; 24 C.J.S. Criminal Law § ... ...
-
Carpentier v. Lainson, 49200
...understand that counsel would be furnished by the state. Such contentions at this time are not found very persuasive. See State v. Cowan, 25 Wash.2d 341, 170 P.2d 653. Petitioner had previous experience with state-furnished counsel at no expense to him when committed to Eldora and must have......
-
Gensburg v. Smith
... ... Otto Arthur Gensburg against Tom Smith, Superintendent of ... Washington State Penitentiary at Walla Walla. From a judgment ... of the Superior Court, Yakima County, B. B. Horrigan, J., pro ... tem., denying the ... by statute with respect to the right to the assistance of ... counsel. See State v. Cowan, 25 Wash.2d 341, 170 ... P.2d 653 ... Appellant ... has also set out other assignments of error in his brief, but ... ...
-
State v. Roff, 32603
...abuse thereof. [Citing a case.]' State v. McKeen, 1936, 186 Wash. 127, 132, 56 P.2d 1026, 1028, and cases cited. See State v. Cowan, 1946, 25 Wash.2d 341, 344, 170 P.2d 653. Upon his arraignment, defendant stated, in reply to inquiries by the court, that his plea of guilty was entered after......