State v. Dunham

• Decision Date: 02 January 1921
• Docket Number: 24942
• Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
• Parties: STATE v. DUNHAM et al

90 So. 387

149 La. 1013

STATE v. DUNHAM et al

No. 24942

Supreme Court of Louisiana

January 2, 1921

Appeal from Fifteenth Judicial District Court, Parish of Calcasieu Jerry Cline, Judge.

Frank McGuire and Frank Dunham pleaded guilty to robbery, and were sentenced. Motion by McGuire to withdraw plea overruled, and he appeals.

Affirmed.

Thos Arthur Edwards, of Lake Charles, for appellant.

A. V Coco, Atty. Gen., Griffin T. Hawkins, Jr., Dist. Atty., and Mark C. Pickrel, Asst. Dist. Atty., both of Lake Charles (T. S. Walmsley, of New Orleans, of counsel), for the State.

DAWKINS J. O'NIELL, J.

OPINION

DAWKINS, J.

Defendants were charged with robbery, were arraigned and pleaded guilty on the 8th of August, 1921, and were each sentenced to the penitentiary for not less than four nor more than five years. The judgment was signed on the 9th, and motion to withdraw his plea of guilty was filed by Frank McGuire on August 11th; Dunham having accepted his sentence and now being in the penitentiary. The motion was fixed for trial by order signed at the foot thereof for August 17th, but was not heard until September 9th, when testimony was taken and the motion submitted and overruled.

Defendant has appealed, assigning as error the refusal to permit the withdrawal of his plea.

Opinion.

The case is brought up on two bills of exception.

Bill No. 1.

On the trial of the motion to withdraw, accused offered evidence to prove an alibi, which was excluded on the objection of the state. The ruling, in our opinion, was correct, for the question of guilt or innocence was not before the court; in fact, the judge, as such, had no power or authority to determine that issue, in view of the nature of the charge, robbery. The only two questions which he was called upon to consider were: First, as to the mental responsibility of the accused in the sense of his appreciating the nature and effect of his act and having therefore made the plea voluntarily; and, second, as to whether the case could be disposed of in vacation, as was done.

Bill No. 2.

The second and last bill was retained to the denial of the motion to withdraw the plea, and the two main grounds upon which it was based, were:

First, that McGuire was in such mental condition, from the effects of narcotics, as not to appreciate what he was doing when he pleaded guilty; and,

Second, that he was arraigned and pleaded during the vacation of the court.

Defendant was not entitled as of right to withdraw his plea, but the matter fell within the sound legal discretion of the trial court. If that discretion has not been abused, this court will not interfere. State v. Delahoussaye, 37 La.Ann. 551; State v. Jammerson, 49 La.Ann. 597, 21 So. 728; State v. Boutte, 119 La. 134, 43 So. 983; State...