State v. Goetz
| Decision Date | 02 July 1960 |
| Docket Number | No. 41957,41957 |
| Citation | 187 Kan. 117,353 P.2d 816 |
| Parties | STATE of Kansas, Appellee, v. Gene GOETZ, Appellant. |
| Court | Kansas Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court
1. The speedy trial provided by section 10 of our bill of rights of an accused person incarcerated in a penal institution of this state has, under specfied conditions, been legislatively defined by G.S.1959 Supp. 62-2901 et seq.
2. The granting of a speedy trail provided by section 10 of our bill of rights and as defined by G.S.1959 Supp., 62-2901 et seq. is not the grant to of our a mere privilege; it is the grant to an accused person of the right of which he cannot be deprived by the lached of public officials.
3. The right to a speedy trial is a personal right which may be waived, and is waived, if acccued fails to assert his right.
4. In an appeal by defendant from a judgment and sentence in a criminal action on the ground the state had failed, after defendant's request, to bring him to trial within the period of time (180 days) required by G.S.1959 Supp., 62-2903, the record is examined, and it is held that under the facts, conditions and circumstances as more fully set forth in the opinion the trial court was without authority to accept defendant's plea of guilty and sentence him for the offense charged.
Gene Goetz, was on the briefs pro se.
Duane E. West, County Atty., Garden City, argued the cause, and John Anderson, Jr., Atty. Gen., and Robert E. Hoffman, Asst. Atty. Gen., were with him on the briefs for the appellee.
Defendant appeals from an order of the trial court overruling his motion for a discharge and from a judgment and sentence in a criminal action.
On September 2, 1958, a complaint was filed in the county count of Finney county which contained two counts charging defendant (appellant), Gene Goetz, with violation of G.S.1949, 21-608 and 21-621. A warrant for defendant's arrest was issued on the same day, but he was not immediately apprehended. On September 5, the defendant was committed to the Kansas state penitentiary upon a sentence for an offense committed in another county, and Finney county authorities, in the same month, filed a detainer with the prison authorities.
On three different occasions, the defendant made written demand for a speedy trial. On October 27, 1958, he wrote the county attorney of Finney county; hearing nothing, he wrote the county attorney on December 11, again demanding a speedy trial. In response to this letter, the county attorney, on December 15, acknowledged receipt of both demands and advised defendant, '* * * as soon as you have been discharged or paroled from Lansing [the Kansas state penitentiary] you will be returned to Finney County and accommodated with a speedy and fair jury trial if you so desire.'
On July 9, 1959, approximately seven months later, defendant, pursuant to G.S.1959 Supp., Ch. 62, Art. 29 (Laws of 1959, Ch. 362, July 1), caused a request for disposition of detainer placed against him to be sent by certified mail to the judge of the county court and the county attorney of Finney county. His request stated:
'Take notice that Gene Goetz, the above named defendant, on this 9th day of July 1959 being incarcerated in the Kansas State Penitentiary at Lansing, Kansas, hereby requests speedy and fair trial by an impartial jury, or a final dismissal, with prejudice, of any and all untried complaint's, indictment or information pending against him in Finney County, Kansas.
'Defendant makes this request under authority of the Uniform Mandatory Disposition of Detainers act as enacted by the Legislature of the State of Kansas.' (G.S.1959 Supp., Ch. 62, Art. 29.)
Defendant's request was received by the respective Finney county authorities July 13.
Subsequently, on September 10, defendant was returned to Finney county. September 11, the warrant of arrest which had been issued September 2, 1958 was served on defendant, and on September 16, 1959, defendant was given a preliminary hearing and bound over to the district court of Finney county for trial at the next term, to commence September 21. On September 21, the Finney county attorney filed the information and the trial court appointed a duly qualified and practicing attorney to represent defendant, who, on November 6, filed a motion in behalf of defendant for discharge on the ground that defendant had not been given a speedy trial. This motion was overruled and on November 9 defendant was returned to the state penitentiary, where he remained until January 9, 1960, at which time he was returned to Finney county for trial on the aforementioned information.
At the trial held January 12, defendant renewed his motion for discharge on the ground that he had not been affored a speedy trial as contemplated by section 10 of the bill of rights of our state constitution and G.S.1959 Supp., Ch. 62, Art. 29, and that by reason thereof the district court of Finney county had lost jurisdiction. The motion was overruled and the county attorney dismissed the first count of the information, and the defendant entered his plea of guilty to the second count. The court accepted defendant's plea of guilty. Defendant thereupon filed a motion for a new trial, again questioning the jurisdiction of the trial court. On Junary 15, the lower court overruled this motion and sentenced him to confinement in the state penitentiary in accordance with G.S.1949, 21-631.
On appeal, the defendant's sole contention is that he was not given a speedy trial as provided in section 10 of our bill of rights and that the district court lost jurisdiction by reason of the failure of the state to bring him to trial within a period provided by G.S.1959 Supp., 62-2903.
Section 10 of our bill of rights declares that in all prosecutions the accused shall have a speedy public trial by an impartial jury of the county in which the offense is alleged to have been committed. In construing the constitutional provisions we said in State v. Hess, 180 Kan. 472, 474, 304 P.2d 474, that this is not the grant of a mere privilege; it is the grant to an accused person of a right of which he cannot be deprived by the laches of public officers. In State v....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Waldrup
...method for an inmate to secure a speedy trial, and where he complies this court has not hesitated to grant relief. See State v. Goetz, [187 Kan. 117, 353 P.2d 816 (1960) ], where the accused was discharged when his trial began just three days after the statutory 180.... [Citation omitted.] ......
-
State v. Fink
...enactments have specifically required action within a given time limit, this court has been quick to grant relief. (State v. Goetz, 187 Kan. 117, 353 P.2d 816 and State v. Sanders, On the record here presented we cannot say the defendant has been prejudiced. His asserted defense is insanity......
-
Craig v. Bronson
...be waived, as the petitioner contends § 54-82d dictates. Pierson v. State, 210 Kan. 367, 372, 502 P.2d 721 (1972); State v. Goetz, 187 Kan. 117, 120, 353 P.2d 816 (1960). This federal influence upon the construction of parallel provisions of the IAD has resulted, because of the need for uni......
-
State v. Rodriguez
...the failure to commence trial within 180 days after the receipt of the request for final disposition jurisdictional. In State v. Goetz, 187 Kan. 117, 353 P.2d 816 (1960), a case presenting a procedural situation similar to the case at bar, this court stated the general rule that the right t......