State v. Dechmann, 34028

Decision Date07 November 1957
Docket NumberNo. 34028,34028
Citation317 P.2d 527,51 Wn.2d 256
CourtWashington Supreme Court
PartiesThe 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.

WEAVER, Justice.

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 Court: You are charged with the crime of indecent liberties alleged to have been committed on March the 25th, to and including the 29th of March, 1956--taking indecent liberties with one [name omitted by us], a female child under the age of fifteen, to-wit, the age of ten. Where do you live?

'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 Court: All right, the prosecutor will read the charge to you. [Information read by the Prosecuting Attorney.].

'The Court: The Prosecuting Attorney says that he believes you are a sexual psychopath. Do you know what that is?

'The Defendant: Yes, Your Honor.

'The Court: Well,--I don't. Well, anyway, it means,--in the first place, are you guilty or not guilty to this crime?

'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:

'The plain mandate of our statute imposes a duty on the court to inform a defendant of his constitutional right to have the aid of counsel. Without this information or prior knowledge of his right, a defendant cannot waive his right 'intelligently and competently.' Merely asking the defendant whether he wants a lawyer does not convey the information that he is entitled to a lawyer at public...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 cases
  • State v. Aiken
    • United States
    • Washington Supreme Court
    • October 26, 1967
    ...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
    • United States
    • Washington Supreme Court
    • September 26, 1963
    ...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
    • United States
    • Washington Supreme Court
    • December 26, 1963
    ...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
    • United States
    • Washington Supreme Court
    • October 20, 1960
    ...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......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT