State v. Kohl
Decision Date | 07 March 1967 |
Docket Number | No. 52292,52292 |
Citation | 260 Iowa 308,149 N.W.2d 198 |
Parties | STATE of Iowa, Appellee, v. Richard Edward KOHL, Appellant. |
Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
Donald J. Dolphin, Manchester, for appellant.
Richard Turner, Atty. Gen., Stephen C. Robinson, Asst. Atty. Gen., and David C. Tracey, Manchester, County Atty., for appellee.
Defendant and two companions, first charged with breaking and entering, pleaded guilty to the included offense, attempting to break and enter. Sections 708.8 and 708.10, Code, 1962. Each received a sentence of not to exceed five years. Defendant alone appeals.
Having originally entered a plea of not guilty to the breaking and entering charge, he later appeared in open court, at which time his attorney stated there had been numerous conferences with the county attorney who finally agreed to recommend dismissal of the more serious charge on defendant's plea of guilty to the lesser offense.
Request was made for leave to withdraw the former plea and substitute a plea of guilty to the crime, attempting to break and enter.
The trial court then inquired as to whether defendant knew the guilty plea indicated by his attorney carried a maximum sentence of not more than five years imprisonment.
Defendant personally stated he so understood, and when asked as to his plea to the included offense answered 'guilty'. The question was repeated and he gave the same answer.
When the trial court asked if these defendants were ready for sentencing, their attorney requested sentence be passed at this time.
The county attorney then made the following statement: This statement is not disputed.
Thereupon defendant's counsel requested dismissal of the possession of burglar's tools charge then also pending against defendant to which the court agreed.
After the attorney for the three accused had addressed the court on their behalf one of them volunteered the following rather vague statement: 'Mr. Kohl was with us, naturally, but he wasn't aware of the breaking and entering until after we had left, and that he was arrested.'
No claim is made to the effect he was mentally incapacitated or deficient when the plea now challenged was entered.
He apparently takes the position the discussions or conferences between his lawyer and the county attorney served, in effect, to induce his plea of guilty to the lesser offense.
We find in this situation no coercion, duress, fraud or undue influence. Defendant was at all times permitted to exercise his own judgment. He elected to enter a plea of guilty.
The question here posed was resolved in State v. Bastedo, ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Ashby v. Haugh
...was no delay, under the circumstances here, is not a denial of due process of law or ground for relief in habeas corpus. State v. Kohl, Iowa, 149 N.W.2d 198, 200; State v. Hurd, Iowa, 147 N.W.2d 895; State v. Clark, supra, 258 Iowa 254, 138 N.W.2d 120, 123; Bennett v. Bradley, 216 Iowa 1267......
-
State v. Ellenburg
...charges no offense, and, of course, the right to challenge the plea itself.' See also State v. Hurd, Iowa, 147 N.W.2d 895; State v. Kohl, Iowa, 149 N.W.2d 198; State v. Lampson, Iowa, 149 N.W.2d 116, both opinions filed March 7, The indictment is in proper form. The minutes attached thereto......
-
Polk County v. Brown
... ... Polk County is a political subdivision of the State of Iowa and has jurisdiction and control of secondary roads in the county ... Defendants are the owners of Lot 5, Dawson Estate, in ... ...