State v. Hayes
| Decision Date | 28 April 1967 |
| Docket Number | No. 40240,40240 |
| Citation | 276 Minn. 384,150 N.W.2d 552 |
| Parties | STATE of Minnesota, Respondent, v. Ervin Martell HAYES, Appellant. |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court
1. In determining whether there has been an abuse of discretion in denying a motion to vacate a judgment of conviction entered pursuant to a plea of guilty and to grant a new trial, this court must consider all facts and surrounding circumstances which form the basis of the trial court's dtermination. One who has already 2. Where a defendant in a criminal case who is represented by competent counsel enters a plea of guilty to a charge contained in an information filed against him, the general rule is that he waives all defenses other than that the information charges no offense.
entered a plea to a criminal complaint does not have the absolute right to withdraw it.
3. The record herein compels a factual determination that defendant voluntarily entered his plea and acknowledged his guilt of the crime charged and that his allegations that he was in any manner denied due process are sham and frivolous.
Edward R. Soshnik, Minneapolis, for appellant.
Douglas M. Head, Atty. Gen., St. Paul, George M. Scott, County Atty., Henry McCarr, Jr., Asst. County Atty., Minneapolis, for respondent.
Appeal from a judgment of conviction and an order of the District Court of Hennepin County denying defendant's motion to vacate said judgment, which was entered pursuant to a plea of guilty to the charge of indecent assault, and to grant him a new trial. The facts are not in dispute.
Following the filing of a complaint March 25, 1965, and several appearances in municipal and district court, in each of which defendant was represented by counsel or was granted a continuance because of his absence, defendant entered a plea of guilty to the charge of indecent assault (Minn.St. 617.08) on May 20, 1965. After a presentence investigation, defendant, appearing before a different district court judge, again pleaded guilty and was sentenced to the commissioner of corrections for an indeterminate term.
Defendant makes no claim of innocence on this appeal. According to the record, his plea of guilty admitted all essential elements of the crime charged in the information. Nevertheless, 5 months after being sentenced, defendant, represented by different counsel, by motion and affidavit now claims that he was 'improperly induced' to plead guilty to the offense charged and that his plea was made on the promise by the attorney representing him that the 'maximum sentence I would receive if I plead guilty would be 30 days in the workhouse.' At the hearing on this motion before the court below, defendant's first attorney testified that he had made no such promise and could not have done so considering defendant's prior record.
1. Defendant sought, by his motion for an order vacating the judgment of conviction, to withdraw his plea of guilty. Such motions are determined by the trial judge in the exercise of his sound discretion and generally his determination will not be disturbed on appeal, absent a showing that the court acted arbitrarily, abusing that discretion. State v. Harding, 260 Minn. 464, 110 N.W.2d 463. In the Harding case, the court said (260 Minn. 470, 110 N.W.2d 468):
'* * * Numerous decisions of this court establish beyond question that the motion to withdraw a plea of guilty and to enter a plea of not guilty is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court, subject to the usual rules governing its exercise.'
See, State v. Jones, 234 Minn. 438, 48 N.W.2d 662; State v. McDonnell, 165 Minn. 423, 206 N.W. 952; State v. Henspeter, 199 Minn. 359, 271 N.W. 700; State v. Olson, 115 Minn. 153, 131 N.W. 1084; State v. Prickett, 217 Minn. 629, 15 N.W.2d 95.
In determining whether there has been an abuse of discretion in denying a motion such as this, this court must consider all facts and surrounding circumstances which form the basis of the trial court's determination. State v. Roggenbuck, 271 Minn. 557, 136 N.W.2d 857. In State v. Jones, 234 Minn. 438, 441, 48 N.W.2d 662, 664, this court said:
'* * * One who has already entered a plea to a criminal complaint does not have the absolute right to withdraw it.'
2. The facts are that defendant was charged with the crime of indecent assault upon the person of an 18-year-old girl. He was represented by his self-selected attorney, Edward M. Cohen, at the preliminary hearing and the subsequent proceedings including his plea of guilty, his replea of guilty, and his sentencing in Hennepin County District Court. At the time of his original plea on May 20, 1965, his counsel asked the following questions:
Defendant was asked similar questions and made like answers at the time of his replea of guilty on June 23, 1965.
Defendant by his motion and affidavit filed in the court below claimed that he entered his plea of guilty on the promise of his attorney that the maximum sentence 'would be 30 days in the workhouse' and further claimed in his affidavit that all of his answers to questions at the plea and replea and at the time of sentencing were made at the direction of Mr. Cohen, alleging that he 'was told by Mr. Cohen to answer yes to all such questions.' Based on the foregoing claims, defendant contends that under the circumstances he 'was in fact deprived of representation by counsel and of prosecution in a fair trial and therefore is entitled at this time to withdraw his plea of guilty and to have a new trial.' In putting forward these claims defendant was represented by his present attorney, Edward R. Soshnik.
At the hearing below on December 7, 1965, the only evidence offered by the defendant was his affidavit and a postconviction letter from the defendant to the trial court. At this hearing the state called Mr. Cohen, who denied under oath that he had made any promises concerning sentencing to defendant and testified that he had told defendant:
'* * * I could not promise anything, and that there was a prior record and he could be sentenced to Stillwater and right to the maximum term.'
Mr. Cohen also categorically denied that he had instructed the defendant to make 'yes' answers to any questions:
Mr. Cohen further testified:
At the conclusion of the hearing...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Wolske
...upon the defendant to either affirm or withdraw his plea of guilty or nolo contendere.' (Italics supplied.)13 See, e.g., State v. Hayes, 276 Minn. 384, 150 N.W.2d 552; State v. Roggenbuck, 271 Minn. 557, 136 N.W.2d 857.14 See, footnote 10.15 A.B.A. Project on Minimum Standards for Criminal ......
-
State v. Brant, C1-87-239
...there was a clear abuse of discretion. State v. Jacobs, 292 Minn. 41, 44, 192 N.W.2d 816, 819 (1971); State v. Hayes, 276 Minn. 384, 386, 150 N.W.2d 552, 553 (1967). To be constitutionally valid, a guilty plea must be knowing, intelligent and voluntary. It must be entered with an understand......
-
State v. Bryant, C8-85-1318
...will not be disturbed on appeal absent a showing that the court acted arbitrarily and abused its discretion. State v. Hayes, 276 Minn. 384, 386, 150 N.W.2d 552, 553 (1967). "In determining whether there has been an abuse of discretion, [the appellate] court must consider all facts and surro......
-
McQueen v. State, No. A08-1978 (Minn. App. 12/15/2009)
...must consider all the facts and circumstances that formed the basis of the district court's determination. State v. Hayes, 276 Minn. 384, 386, 150 N.W.2d 552, 553-54 (1967). We will sustain the district court's findings if they are supported by sufficient evidence in the record. Williams v.......