State v. Poierier
| Decision Date | 08 January 1958 |
| Citation | 320 P.2d 255,212 Or. 369 |
| Parties | STATE of Oregon, Respondent, v. Harold Walter POIERIER, Appellant. |
| Court | Oregon Supreme Court |
Harold Walter Poierier, pro se., for appellant.
G. F. Rakestraw, Dist. Atty., Bend, for respondent.
At the October, 1950, term of the Circuit Court of the State of Oregon for the County of Deschutes, Harold Walter Poierier entered a plea of guilty to the crime of grand larceny, and is now confined in the state penitentiary.
On February 20, 1957, defendant filed in the Circuit Court of the State of Oregon for the County of Deschutes a motion to This motion was denied by the trial court on the ground that it was 'without jurisdiction to hear the motion to set aside the Judgment, Sentence and Information under the existing laws of the State of Oregon,' relying upon White v. Gladden, 209 Or. 53, 303 P.2d 226, and State v. Huffman, 207 Or. 372, 297 P.2d 831. From this ruling of the trial court the defendant has appealed.
The defendant in his motion alleged the following:
'Comes now the above named defendant, Harold Walter Poierier, and respectfully moves the Court for an Order setting aside that certain sentence entered on the 13th day of October, 1950, in the above-entitled cause, and denominated findings and Order posited and the information filed by A. J. Moore, District Attorney for the State of Oregon for the County of Deschutes, for the reason that as appears from the records and the files herein that said information was filed by said District Attorney wrongfully and illegally without said defendant having first appeared before any Judge of the County and State and having the nature of the charge explained to him, as by the Oregon Constitution provided; for the further reason that the record affirmatively shows that the defendant was charged, waived grand jury indictment, and that the District Attorney filed his information without the defendant first being represented by, or waiving the right to counsel; and as further appears from the records and files herein, that it appears on the face of the alleged information that the said District Attorney wrongfully and illegally had injected into the information that the said 1938 Buick automobile was valued at $600.00 dollars, when the said Buick automobile at the time was actually (13) thirteen years old and had no valuation of more than $25.00 twenty-five dollars, said District Attorney put the $600.00 valuation of the said Buick automobile into the information as to construe that a crime of larceny of an automobile had been committed when actually the only charge that should have been filed against the defendant was a charge of petty larceny, 'if to be charged at all' and that for this reason said alleged information is an erronious (sic) application of the charge of larceny of an automobile and the alleged plea of guilty to said crime and the said arraignment on said alleged information are therefore nullities.'
The original judgment recites the following:
'The defendants appeared before the court at ten o'clock on this date accompanied by their attorney Owen Panner and in the custody of the Sheriff of this county, the State of Oregon being represented by A. J. Moore, District Attorney.
'The District Attorney then stated that the defendants were before the court at this time on the charge of larceny while acting jointly and together, and had been before this court on October 6, 1950, on said charge at which time they had signed waivers of indictment on the charge against them and had stated that they desired the services of an attorney and the court had thereupon appointed Owen Panner to represent both defendants and further proceedings had been postponed until this time.
'The court then asked the defendants, through their attorney, if they still desired to let the waivers of indictment which they had signed on October 6th, 1950, stand as before stated and they replied that they did. The information presented to the court by the District Attorney charging the defendants with said crime was then filed and was read to the defendants by the clerk of the court.
'The court then advised the defendants that they were entitled to take two days time before entering a plea to the charge against them, and each defendant stated that he wished to enter his plea immediately. The court then asked defendant Kenneth Leo Adams what his plea was to said charge and he replied 'Guilty.' The court then asked defendant Harold Walter Poierier what his plea was to said charge and he replied 'Guilty.'
'A statement was then made by the District Attorney and the defendants' F. B. I. records were presented to the court.
'The court then advised the defendants that they were entitled to take one days time before having sentence passed upon them and each defendant stated that he wished to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Reeves v. Nooth
...tool to correct errors of fact in judicial proceedings, and it functioned as a delayed motion for a new trial. See State v. Poierier , 212 Or. 369, 372, 320 P.2d 255 (1958) (so characterizing a motion in the nature of coram nobis ). However, Collins and Neil noted that the PCHA "forecloses ......
-
State v. Endsley
...a petition for a writ of error coram nobis is the setting aside of judgment and the granting of a new trial.' In State v. Poierier, 212 Or. 369, 372, 320 P.2d 255, 257, we characterized such a petition as 'a delayed motion for a new trial.' As applied to this case, of course, since there ha......
-
State v. Grisgraber
...... The facts must be unknown at the time of the trial without fault of the party seeking relief. State v. Becker, 263 Minn. 168, 115 N.W.2d 920 (1962). A writ of error coram nobis lies only in the unusual situation where no adequate remedy is provided by law. State v. Poierier, 212 Or. 369, 320 P.2d 255 (1958), overruled on other grounds, State v. Endsley, 214 Or. 537, 331 P.2d 338 (1958); 18 Am. Jur.2d, Coram Nobis § 12. Thus, such a writ has been held not to be available when a proper remedy is afforded by an appeal; Barber v. United States, 142 F.2d 805 (4th Cir. ......
-
State v. Miller
...The defendant's own averments and argument exclude them from the specifications laid down in State v. Huffman, supra, and State v. Poierier, Or., 320 P.2d 255. It is unnecessary to repeat what was, in those cases, well and clearly said. No constitutional rights are involved. Nor is there an......