State v. Hudspeth
Decision Date | 09 December 1935 |
Docket Number | Cr. 3967 |
Parties | STATE v. HUDSPETH |
Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Appeal from Boone Circuit Court; William T. Mills, Special Judge reversed.
Judgment reversed, and cause dismissed.
Carl E. Bailey, Attorney General, and Guy E. Williams, Assistant, for appellant.
John L. Carter, Sam Rorex and Edward H. Coulter, for appellee.
The appellee was indicted January 15, 1932, for receiving deposits into an insolvent bank. On April 30, 1932, he made bond in the sum of $ 750 for his appearance in court. On July 18, 1932, he filed motion for a change of venue. This motion was overruled by the court. On July 18, 1932, appellee entered his plea of guilty, and it was ordered and adjudged by the court that the cause be continued until the January term of court, 1933, for sentence and judgment.
On July 17, 1933, appellee filed the following motion:
On July 18, 1933, appellee filed a motion to disqualify the presiding judge. Evidence was heard on this motion, and the motion was overruled. The court then overruled appellee's motion to withdraw his plea of guilty, and sentenced him for three years in the penitentiary. The appellee filed his motion for a new trial, which was overruled, and an appeal was prosecuted to this court.
The case was decided by this court on December 4, 1933, and is reported as Hudspeth v. State, 188 Ark. 323, 67 S.W.2d 191.
On February 4, 1935, appellee filed in the Boone Circuit Court a petition for a writ of error coram nobis. In the petition he made a lengthy statement about the financial condition of the country and about the condition of banks and alleged his indictment, and motion for change of venue, and the agreement that he claimed to have had with the officers, and stated, among other things, that he was convinced that his life would be in danger if he proceeded to trial, and entered a plea of guilty, and that he would not otherwise have entered such a plea; that upon entering his plea, the cause was continued for the term without the pronouncement of sentence; that he thereafter filed his petition asking that the judgment of conviction be set aside, and that he be permitted to go on trial in the case on its merits; that his petition was overruled and sentence passed on him condemning him to serve three years in the penitentiary; that an appeal was taken, and that the judgment was modified by the Supreme Court by reducing the penalty to one year; that he had been denied his constitutional rights; that preliminary steps for...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Larimore v. State
...we grant leave, the trial court must then determine the merits of the petition. This follows the rule first stated in State v. Hudspeth, 191 Ark. 963, 88 S.W.2d 858 (1935). An issue in that case was whether a writ of error coram nobis is available after appeal. Id. at 970, 88 S.W.2d at 861.......
-
State v. Tejeda-Acosta
...on his counsel's part. Appellee has therefore not stated appropriate grounds for relief in coram-nobis proceedings. See State v. Hudspeth, 191 Ark. 963, 969, 88 S.W.2d 858, 861 (1935) (stating that “[i]f one is caused to enter a plea of guilty in a criminal case from fear or duress, he is e......
-
Rogers v. Jones
...proper office of the writ of error coram nobis as well as an inquiry into the sanity of one convicted. 'In the case of State v. Hudspeth, 191 Ark. 963, 88 S.W.2d 858, 861, this court said: 'If one is caused to enter a plea of guilty in a criminal case from fear or duress, he is entitled to ......
-
Noble v. State
...jurisdiction because the writ of error coram nobis lies to correct a judgment by the court that rendered it. See State v. Hudspeth, 191 Ark. 963, 88 S.W.2d 858 (1935). This court has articulated the rules for a writ of error coram nobis as follows:A writ of error coram nobis is an extraordi......