State v. Daegele
| Decision Date | 08 December 1962 |
| Docket Number | No. 43114,43114 |
| Citation | 190 Kan. 613,376 P.2d 807 |
| Parties | STATE of Kansas, Appellee, v. George William DAEGELE, Appellant. |
| Court | Kansas Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court
Rule number 5 of this court requires that an appellant's abstract shall include a specification of errors complained of, separately set forth and numbered, and where an appellant fails to comply with such rule appellate review is precluded and the appeal will be dismissed.
George William Daegele, pro se.
Wesley M. Norwood, County Atty., argued the cause, and William M. Ferguson, Atty. Gen., Robert E. Hoffman, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Ralph M. King, Jr., Asst. County Atty., were with him on the brief for appellee.
The defendant, George William Daegele, upon his plea of guilty, was convicted in the district court of Douglas county of the offense of forcible rape (G.S.1949, 21-424). This appeal followed.
Throughout all proceedings in the district court defendant was represented by court-appointed counsel. In his appeal to this court, however, he appears pro se, and has filed a number of handwritten documents. Among them are a purported abstract and brief. Because of the inadequacy of defendant's 'abstract' to show the proceedings in the district court, the state has filed a counter abstract and from it we summarize briefly.
Defendant was charged in two counts:
Court I charged him with kidnapping a twelve-year-old girl and inflicting bodily harm upon her person by assaulting, beating, choking and forcibly ravishing her (G.S.1961 Supp. 21-449).
Count II charged him with the forcible rape of the girl (G.S.1949, 21-424).
Following a preliminary hearing in the county court at which defendant was represented by a Missouri attorney, he was bound over to the district court for trial on both charges.
Apparently the Missouri attorney withdrew from the case, but, in any event, when the matter reached the district court defendant requested that counsel be appointed to represent him. Accordingly, Mr. Fred M. Six, a fully qualified and capable member of the Douglas county bar, was appointed to represent him. Mr. Six accepted the appointment, and on November 9, 1961, upon arraignment, defendant entered a plea of not guilty to the crime of kidnapping in the first degree as charged in count I of the information, and a plea of not guilty to the crime of forcible rape as charged in count II.
On January 2, 1962, defendant, being present in court and by counsel, withdrew his plea of not guilty to the offense of forcible rape as charged in count II of the information, and entered his plea of guilty thereto. With respect to this the counter abstract shows the following:
'Defendant: This is the instruction that I have given my attorney yes, sir.
'The Court: This is your plea?
'Defendant: Yes, sir.'
Thereupon the state moved to dismiss count I of the information. The motion was sustained and count I was dismissed. The state then announced that it intended to introduce evidence of a prior conviction of felony under the provisions of the habitual criminal statute (G.S.1949, 21-107a). Imposition of sentence was deferred.
On January 13, 1962, the matter came on for further hearing. From the evidence introduced it was established that defendant had previously been convicted in the state of Missouri of two counts of statutory rape...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Donnell v. Swenson
...retrospective applications of Douglas without any apparent disruption of the administration of the criminal law: State of Kansas v. Daegle (1962), 190 Kan. 613, 376 P.2d 807 (original appeal), Daegle v. Kansas, 375 U.S. 1, 84 S.Ct. 89, 11 L.Ed.2d 44 (reversed and remanded), Kan., 393 P.2d 9......
-
Daegele v. Crouse
...criminal statute, K.S.A. 21-107a, to a term of ten (10) to forty-two (42) years. The conviction was affirmed in State v. Daegele, 190 Kan. 613, 376 P.2d 807 (1962). The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari, vacated the judgment, and remanded for consideration in light of Douglas v......
-
State v. Daegele
...dismissed by this court for failure to comply with the rules of appellate procedeure, and this court's opinion is found at State v. Dagele, 190 Kan. 613, 376 P.2d 807. Defendant subsequently filed with the Supreme Court of the United States a petition for a writ of certiorari. On October 14......
-
State v. Daegele, 45833
...pro se and on December 2, 1962, this court dismissed the appeal for reasons appearing in the opinion set forth in State v. Daegele, 190 Kan. 613, 376 P.2d 807. The United States Supreme Court subsequently granted certiorari and on October 14, 1963, that court remanded the case for reconside......