State v. Waldron, 39572
| Decision Date | 14 January 1966 |
| Docket Number | No. 39572,39572 |
| Citation | 273 Minn. 57,139 N.W.2d 785 |
| Parties | STATE of Minnesota, Respondent, v. Raymond Garold WALDRON, Appellant. |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court
1. Minn.Const. art. 1, § 6, provides that in all criminal prosecutions the accused shall enjoy the right to have the assistance of counsel in his defense. It is well settled that the Federal Constitution guarantees to every citizen the right to counsel under the Fourteenth Amendment. Minn.St. 611.07 makes provision for counsel for the defense as one of the rights of the accused.
2. The constitution's guarantee of assistance of counsel cannot be satisfied by mere formal appointment. The denial of the effective assistance of counsel to one charged with crime violates due process, and it is a denial of the accused's constitutional right to a fair trial to force him to trial with such expedition as to deprive him of the effecitve aid and assistance of counsel.
3. The due process requirements of U.S.Const. Amend. XIV, as well as those of Minn.Const. art. 1, § 7, are satisfied if counsel is appointed in sufficient time to assure an adequate preparation of the defense. A judgment, however, will be held void for want of due process only where the circumstances surrounding the trial are such as to make it a sham and a pretense rather than a real judicial proceeding.
4. It is the duty of the trial court before accepting a plea of guilty to satisfy itself of the voluntary character of the plea and to have this made a matter of record. The record in the instant case is clear that the court, in accepting the plea of guilty, had determined through the questioning of the defendant that the plea was voluntarily made. The record further indicates that the accused and fully informed of the nature of the crime with which he was charged and of the consequences of a conviction.
5. A withdrawal of a plea of guilty is addressed to the sound discretion of the court.
6. To be sufficient, allegations of incompetence on the part of counsel must disclose a performance so incompetent as to make the trial a farce or a mockery or justice. The bare assertion that the attorney for the accused is not competent is not of juridical significance. In the absence of any affirmative showing to the contrary, there is a controlling presumption that court-appointed counsel in a criminal case not only has consulted with the accused, but also has advised him in good faith of his rights in entering a plea of guilty or not guilty.
7. The fact that court-appointed counsel did not obtain a psychiatric examination for defendant is not sufficient to hold that he was denied due process when he did not profess to be mentally incompetent.
8. The record is clear that defendant's own admissions made at the time of the plea and at the sentencing were conclusive of his guilt and there being no evidence indicative of innocence the trial court did not err in denying the motion for a change of plea.
Lee N. Johnson, Minneapolis, for appellant.
Robert W. Mattson, Atty. Gen., St. Paul, George M. Scott, County Atty., Theodore Rix, Asst. Co. Atty., Minneapolis, for respondent.
Defendant, Raymond G. Waldron, was convicted of the crime of incest on his plea of guilty entered before the District Court of Hennepin County December 5, 1963. He had been charged in an information filed against him on December 3 with having committed the crime by having sexual relations with his 16-year-old daughter on November 24, 1963. He now appeals from the judgment of conviction.
A complaint was filed against defendant in the Minneapolis municipal court on November 27, 1963, by his wife, LaVonne D. Waldron. A warrant was thereupon issued and defendant was brought before the court on November 30, 1963, at which time defendant was advised with respect to his rights by a member of the staff of the Hennepin County public defender. Defendant then waived a preliminary hearing and on December 3 was arraigned before the district court. He stated to the court that he was without funds to hire an attorney and, after an examination as to the extent of his poverty, the court appointed the public defender as his counsel. No plea was entered at the time and the matter was continued to December 5, at which time defendant appeared with Mr. Kermit A. Gill, the Hennepin County public defender, as his counsel and entered a plea of guilty to the crime charged. He had in the meantime talked over the charge against him with the public defender in a separate room in the county jail. This conference occurred after Mr. Gill had made his own personal investigation, having spent some 3 hours studying the county attorney's file, checking the facts with an investigator from the sheriff's office, and completing what he thought to be the necessary research prior to the hearing set for December 5.
After being arraigned and entering the plea of guilty, defendant was examined by Mr. Gill as follows:
'Q State your full name, please.
'A Raymond Garold Waldron.
'Q How old are you, Mr. Waldron?
'A Thirty-six.
'Q Where do you live?
'A 249--21st Avenue North.
'Q And what city is that?
'A Minneapolis.
'Q Now, in regard to this charge of incest you and I have talked this matter over, is that correct?
'A Yes, sir.
'Q And you understand that incest is a felony in our State and punishable up to ten years imprisonment?
'A Yes, sir.
'Q And I have further explained to you that you would be absolutely entitled to a trial by jury, is that correct?
'A Yes, sir.
'Q And that had you a trial by jury there would be this presumption of innocence unless and until the State introduced evidence to prove your guilt beyond a reasonable doubt?
'A Yes, sir.
'Q And you understand this?
'A Yes, sir.
'Q And no threats or promises have been made by myself or any other person to induce you to enter this plea of guilty?
'A No, sir.
'Q Is this plea of guilty of your own free will and accord?
'A Yes, sir.
'Q You are charged specifically with on or about the 24th day of November, 1963, with having sexual intercourse with your daughter, is that correct?
'A Yes, sir.
'Q How old is your daughter?
'A Sixteen.
'Q No question in your mind that you did upon that date have sexual intercourse?
'A No, sir.
'Q And you understand what sexual intercourse is?
'A Yes, sir.'
At this point Mr. Gill requested that a presentence investigation be made and the court so ordered. Upon its completion a hearing was held on January 8, 1964, at which the state moved for sentence. The court then examined defendant as follows:
'Q How old are you, Mr. Waldron?
'Q Are you married?
'A Yes, sir.
'Q What is your wife's name?
'A Pardon?
'Q What is your wife's name?
'A LaVonne Darlene Waldron.
'Q How many children do you have?
'A Six.
'Q What are their ages?
'A They vary from sixteen to two and a half.
'Q Sixteen to two and a half?
'A Yes, sir.
'Q How far did you go in school?
'A Sixth grade.
'Q Do you have any trade or vocation of any kind?
'A Well, I had been working as a machinist and sort of a painter.
'Q Machinist and painter?
'A Yes.
'Q Are you qualified as a tradesman in those crafts?
'Q What is your religion?
'A Protestant.
'Q Is there anything you wish to say before sentence is imposed?
'THE COURT: You have done a good job of it, apparently, from the report.
'A Something I'll remember for the rest of my life.'
Defendant was then sentenced to an indeterminate term.
On June 29, 1964, he moved the District Court of Hennepin County to vacate the sentence and to allow him to withdraw his plea of guilty to the charge of incest and to enter a plea of not guilty. This motion was based upon all the files, records, and proceedings in the matter and a supporting affidavit in which defendant made the following claims:
'That at the arraignment the Court appointed Kermit A. Gill, Attorney at Law, of the Hennepin County Public Defenders' office to represent affiant on this charge.
'That said Kermit A. Gill saw affiant on one occasion thereafter and spent not over five minutes with him in the county jail.
'That during said five minute meeting, the elements of the charge of incest was not explained nor was the degree of proof required to prove him guilty at a trial, nor was the possible period of confinement explained to him should he be found guilty or plead guilty.
'The only discussion between said attorney Gill and affiant was whether or not affiant was guilty of the charge of incest to which affiant stated 'he didn't know' and thereafter was told by said attorney Gill to plead guilty as 'he could do more for affiant if he so plead'.
'Affiant asked said attorney about a psychiatric examination to which the attorney replied 'I'll see to it that you get the whole works'.
'That affiant did not hear further regarding any psychiatric examination nor did affiant have any further contact or discussions with said Court appointed attorney until affiant was asked questions on the witness stand as to a plea of guilty.
'That had the elements of said crime of incest been fully explained to him and had the degree of proof for a finding of guilty been fully explained to him, affiant would have entered a plea of not guilty to this charge.'
At the hearing on this motion a court-appointed counsel who was not a member of the public defender's staff appeared on behalf of defendant. The public defender, who had consulted with defendant before and represented him at the time he entered his plea of guilty, was presented as a witness on behalf of the state and upon examination testified as follows:
'Q Would you state your full name and position.
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Chapman v. State, 41285
...defendant shows an effective denial of right to counsel, his conviction based on a plea of guilty should be vacated. See, State v. Waldron, 273 Minn. 57, 139 N.W.2d 785. Note, also, State v. Seebold, supra; State v. Johnson, 279 Minn. 209, 156 N.W.2d 218; State v. Roberts, 279 Minn. 319, 15......
-
State v. Olsen
...287 U. S. 45, 53 S.Ct. 55, 77 L.Ed. 158 (1932). Accord, State v. Fields, 279 Minn. 374, 157 N.W.2d 61 (1968); State v. Waldron, 273 Minn. 57, 139 N.W.2d 785 (1966). Effective assistance of counsel contemplates that such assistance be "untrammeled and unimpaired by * * * requiring that one l......
-
State v. Borst, 40967
...be advised of his right to counsel but that the court may not appoint counsel if he is unable to retain one himself. In State v. Waldron, 273 Minn. 57, 139 N.W.2d 785, we said that our constitution provides that in all criminal prosecutions the accused shall enjoy the right to assistance of......
-
Thomas & Betts Corporation v. Leger, No. A04-260 (MN 11/24/2004)
...502, 506 (Minn. 1981). A judgment is also void if it is entered in a manner inconsistent with due process. See State v. Waldron, 273 Minn. 57, 66-67, 139 N.W.2d 785, 792 (1966) (stating that judgment of conviction will be held void for want of due process when circumstances surrounding tria......