State v. Ogle, 40983
| Decision Date | 20 May 1970 |
| Docket Number | No. 40983,40983 |
| Citation | 78 Wn.2d 86,469 P.2d 918 |
| Parties | The STATE of Washington, Respondent, v. William Francis OGLE, Defendant, Elmer H. O'Neil, Appellant. |
| Court | Washington Supreme Court |
J. Hartly Newsum, Bellevue, for appellant.
Charles O. Carroll, Pros. Atty., Seattle, James E. Anderson, Deputy Pros. Atty., for respondent.
Defendant appeals from his conviction in King County Superior Court. The jury in a general verdict found defendant guilty of armed robbery, and assault in the first degree. By special verdict the jury found defendant was armed with a deadly weapon at the time of the robbery.
Defendant's court-appointed counsel on appeal has sought to withdraw from the case; he contends that the record presents no issues meriting appeal. In accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), counsel filed a brief January 30, 1970 setting forth the issues which could be grounds for appeal and simultaneously pointing out why he believed each to be frivolous. The state filed a short brief on February 9, 1970, agreeing with defense counsel's conclusions, and moved for dismissal of the appeal. Defendant was given until April 30, 1970, to file a brief in his own behalf; he did not do so.
The facts are these: defendant was charged, along with one William Francis Ogle, with having robbed a Seattle grocery store at gunpoint. The accused were tried in a joint trial over defendant's objections.
Proof at trial showed that defendant and his cohort entered the Pinehurst I.G.A. Grocery on November 11, 1968, brandishing drawn pistols. They forced one of the counter boys to empty the cash registers and compelled all persons present to lie down in a room in the rear of the store.
As defendant and Ogle departed from the store, one Officer Allshaw appeared and seized Ogle from behind. Defendant fired at Allshaw who returned the fire and wounded defendant. At the same moment another officer approached the scene and, in the confusion, fatally wounded Officer Allshaw with gunfire.
Numerous witnesses identified defendant as one of the robbers inside the store and as one of the men wounded following the robbery.
Defendant has raised eight assignments of error. We have thoroughly reviewed the record and agree with counsel that the contentions are frivolous and dismiss the appeal.
Defendant claims that prior to trial he was denied bail, was not allowed to make a phone call, and was interrogated without being advised of his constitutional rights. None of these alleged incidents led to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Grisby
...33 L.Ed.2d 747 (1972) (and overruled on other grounds by State v. Gosby, 85 Wash.2d 758, 539 P.2d 680 (1975)). See also State v. Ogle, 78 Wash.2d 86, 469 P.2d 918 (1970); State v. Palmer, 73 Wash.2d 462, 438 P.2d 876 (1968). Numerous jurisdictions have held the existence of antagonistic def......
-
Butts v. Constantine
...not a culpability-finding proceeding," so the inquest jury's verdict is not a binding adjudication of criminal guilt. State v. Ogle , 78 Wash.2d 86, 88, 469 P.2d 918 (1970). Rather, an inquest is one of four "established, recognized and legally permissible methods for determining the existe......
-
Miranda v. Sims
...a determination of guilt or responsibility. See Carrick v. Locke, 125 Wash.2d 129, 133, 882 P.2d 173 (1994) (citing State v. Ogle, 78 Wash.2d 86, 88, 469 P.2d 918 (1970)). The purpose of an inquest is to determine the identity of the deceased, the cause of death, and the circumstances of th......
-
Carrick v. Locke
...and denied the request. NATURE OF INQUESTS "A coroner's inquest is not a culpability-finding proceeding." State v. Ogle, 78 Wash.2d 86, 88, 469 P.2d 918 (1970). Rather, the purpose of a coroner's inquest is to determine who died, what was the cause of death, and what were the circumstances ......