State v. Dechmann, 34028
Decision Date | 07 November 1957 |
Docket Number | No. 34028,34028 |
Citation | 317 P.2d 527,51 Wn.2d 256 |
Court | Washington Supreme Court |
Parties | The STATE of Washington, Respondent, v. Hans Richard DECHMANN, Appellant. |
Greenwood, Shiers & Presser, Port Orchard, for appellant.
John C. Merkel, Farrell E. Cook, Bremerton, for respondent.
Defendant appeals from a judgment and sentence, and from the order of the court denying his motion to withdraw his plea of guilty.
Ten grounds are stated in support of defendant's motion to set aside his plea of guilty. We find it necessary to discuss only one of them; namely, that defendant had been denied the constitutional protection of right to counsel.
Defendant appeared without counsel. The record discloses that the following occurred when he was arraigned:
'The Defendant: Poulsbo.
'The Court: How old are you?
'The Defendant: Fifty-five.
'The Court: Do you have a lawyer?
'The Defendant: No.
'The Court: Do you want a lawyer?
'The Defendant: No.
'The Court: You are sure you don't want one?
'The Defendant: No, Sir.
'The Defendant: Yes, Your Honor.
'The Defendant: Guilty.'
In addition to the constitutional protection (Washington constitution, Art. 1, § 22 (amendment 10), RCW 10.40.030 provides:
'If the defendant appear without counsel, he shall be informed by the court that it is his right to have counsel before being arraigned, and he shall be asked if he desire the aid of counsel, and if it appear that he is unable to employ counsel by reason of poverty, counsel shall be assigned to him by the court.' (Italics ours.)
Defendant's motion to set aside his plea of guilty should have been granted. The record discloses that he was not informed by the court that it was his right to have counsel before arraignment, as the statute requires.
Our conclusion is governed by our decision in Wilken v. Squier, Wash.1957, 309 P.2d 746, 749, which was announced subsequent to the ruling of the trial court in the instant case. The same formula concerning the right to counsel was used. Of it, the court said:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Aiken
...the right 'intelligently and competently.' See, also, In re Friedbauer v. State, 51 Wash.2d 92, 316 P.2d 117 (1957); State v. Dechmann, 51 Wash.2d 256, 317 P.2d 527 (1957); In re Aichele v. Rhay, 57 Wash.2d 178, 356 P.2d 326 (1960). In In re Wakefield v. Rhay, 57 Wash.2d 168, 356 P.2d 596 (......
-
State v. Angevine
...P.2d 517; In re Wilken v. Squier, 50 Wash.2d 58, 309 P.2d 746; In re Friedbauer v. State, 51 Wash.2d 92, 316 P.2d 117; State v. Dechmann, 51 Wash.2d 256, 317 P.2d 527; In re Wakefield v. Rhay, 57 Wash.2d 168, 356 P.2d To prevail, upon the issues presented by his claim, petitioner was requir......
-
Ritchie v. Rhay, 36903
...had not been adequately advised of their constitutional right to counsel, and, therefore, there could be no waiver. State v. Dechmann, 51 Wash.2d 256, 317 P.2d 527 (1957), cited by appellants, is clearly distinguishable from the present case. There, the defendant was asked by the trial cour......
-
Wakefield v. Rhay, 35081
...defendant was deprived of a right guaranteed to him by Art. I, § 22, (amend- ment 10) of the state constitution. See State v. Dechmann, 1957, 51 Wash.2d 256, 317 P.2d 527; In re Friedbauer v. State, 1957, 51 Wash.2d 92, 316 P.2d The respondent argues that In re Wilken v. Squier should not b......