State v. Wharton, 43895
| Decision Date | 15 May 1965 |
| Docket Number | No. 43895,43895 |
| Citation | 194 Kan. 694,401 P.2d 906 |
| Parties | STATE of Kansas, Appellee, v. Oscar Floyd WHARTON, Appellant. |
| Court | Kansas Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court
1. The jurisdiction of the district court to try a person for a criminal offense does not depend upon how he case to be within the state.
2. Jurisdiction of the person in a criminal action is not affected by the way it is acquired.
Terry L. Bullock, Topeka, argued the cause, and Robert L. Webb, Ralph W. Oman, Philip E. Buzick, William B. McElhenny, James D. Waugh, James L. Grimes, Jr., Donald J. Horttor, and Stewart L. Entz, Topeka, on the brief for appellant.
R. K. Hollingsworth, Deputy County Atty., argued the cause, and Robert C. Londerholm Atty. Gen., Charles Henson, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Keith Sanborn, County Atty., on the brief for appellee.
Oscar Floyd Wharton, hereinafter referred to as defendant, was charged by an information in the district court of Sedgwick county with three counts of first degree robbery and one count of possession of a pistol following conviction of a felony. Before defendant was arraigned on these charges he escaped from custody and a second information was filed charging him with escaping custody before conviction in violation of G.S.1949, 21-736. A warrant was issued on the latter information. The sheriff of Sedgwick county arrested defendant and took him into custody at Little Rock, Arkansas, and returned him to Sedgwick county.
The sheriff returned the warrant on October 6, 1963. On October 7 defendant appeared with his duly appointed counsel, waived arraignment, moved for a preliminary hearing, entered a plea of not guilty, requested a jury trial and moved to quash the information. On October 10 the mentioned cases were consolidated for trial and defendant moved to dismiss the cases for the reasons that his arrest in Arkansas and his subsequent forcible return to the state of Kansas without extradition of waiver thereof were illegal, that the court acquired no jurisdiction over the person of defendant, and that any further proceedings in the case would be ineffectual and void. This motion was overruled. There is nothing in the record, other than the colloquy between defendant's counsel and the court, to show what took place in Arkansas.
On October 11 the defendant entered a plea of guilty to all counts set forth in the mentioned informations and was sentenced to the state penitentiary. While in confinement, and on the 21st of November, defendant appealed pro se to this court. Subsequently, counsel was appointed by the court to represent the defendant in his appeal.
It is defendant's sole contention on appeal that by virtue of the illegal manner in which he was arrested in the state of Arkansas and brought to the jurisdiction of the Sedgwick county court the trial court lacked jurisdiction over the person of the defendant to entertain his pleas of guilty and render a binding sentence.
This court is committed to the well-established rule that the jurisdiction of a district court of this state to try a person on a charge of having committed a public offense does not depend upon how v. Hand, 185 Kan. 112, 113, 340 P.2d 874; rule, of course, applies to the jurisdiction of the district court in such cases to entertain a plea of guilty to the offense charged in the information filed therein. (Converse v. Hand, 185 Kan. 112, 113 340 P.2d 874; Carrier v. Hand, 183 Kan. 350, 351, 327 P.2d 895; Stebens v. Hand, 182 Kan. 304, 306, 320 P.2d 790; Foster v. Hudspeth, 170 Kan. 338, 340, 224 P.2d 987, cert. dismissed 340 U.S. 940, 95 L.Ed. 678 71 S.Ct. 503.) (See also, Anno. 165 A.L.R. 947; 22 C.J.S. Criminal Law § 146, p. 391.) In Stebens v. Hand, supra, this court said:
(182 Kan. p. 306, 320 P.2d p. 792).
The general rule is stated in 14 Am.Jur., Criminal Law, § 217, p. 919:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Carr
...pleads to the merits of the action “waives all objections with respect to the court's jurisdiction of his person.” State v. Wharton, 194 Kan. 694, 696, 401 P.2d 906 (1965) (citing 22 C.J.S., Criminal Law § 162, p. 421; 4 Wharton's Criminal Law and Procedure, § 1890, p. 759 [1957] ). The Sta......
-
State v. Stone
...any event, as of 1965, Kansas fell into line with the otherwise unanimous current of authorities by its decision in State v. Wharton, 194 Kan. 694, 401 P.2d 906 (1965).17 The stress upon this aspect of the 'integrity' of the guilt-adjudication process-in the sense of its dignity and jecency......
-
Lurie v. District Attorney of Kings County, Docket No. B12320
...17 S.Ct. 735, 42 L.Ed. 103; Keegan v. United States, 9 Cir., 385 F.2d 260; Pon v. United States, 1 Cir., 168 F.2d 373; State v. Wharton, 194 Kan. 694, 401 P.2d 906; State v. Garcia, 76 N.M. 171, 413 P.2d 210; Pillsbury v. State, 31 Wis.2d 87, 142 N.W.2d 187; Henderson v. Warden, 237 Md. 519......
-
Herman v. Brewer, 54893
...v. Rhay, 68 Wash.2d 496, 413 P.2d 654, 656, 657 (1966); State v. Green, 2 N.C.App. 391, 163 S.E.2d 14, 16 (1968); State v. Wharton, 194 Kan. 694, 401 P.2d 906, 907 (1965); State v. Fox, 250 Or. 83, 439 P.2d 1009, 1010 (1968); Brooks v. Boles, 151 W.Va. 576, 153 S.E.2d 526, 529 (1967); Hobso......