State v. Whitehead
Decision Date | 14 January 1969 |
Docket Number | No. 53237,53237 |
Citation | 163 N.W.2d 899 |
Parties | STATE of Iowa, Appellee, v. Charles D. WHITEHEAD, Appellant. |
Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
Harry H. Smith, Sioux City, for appellant.
Richard C. Turner, Atty. Gen., James R. Martin, Asst. Atty. Gen., Edward F. Samore, Woodbury County Atty., for appellee.
This is a companion case to State v. Weitzel, Iowa, 163 N.W.2d 903, filed January 14, 1969.
Defendant pleaded guilty to the charge of breaking and entering and was sentenced to not more than 10 years in the men's reformatory at Anamosa. Immediately after sentence, defendant filed a motion to withdraw the plea of guilty, which was denied by the trial court after hearing. Defendant appealed claiming the plea of guilty had been induced by false promises of leniency and was therefore void.
Defendant was apprehended about 10:00 p.m. March 24, 1968 inside the All Wheel Drive Company building which had been entered by breaking out a window in a door to unlock it. Weitzel and a girl were picked up about one-half block away in an automobile. Weitzel and Whitehead, both 18 years old, were informed of their constitutional rights including the right to counsel. They readily admitted their involvement in the breaking and entering.
On March 26, 1968 defendant and Weitzel appeared with court appointed counsel of their choice, waived arraignment and were given 10 days to plead to the information.
On April 8, 1968 defendant and Weitzel appeared with counsel and entered a plea of guilty. The following record was made in defendant's case at that time.
The trial court set April 16 for judgment and sentence and ordered a presentence investigation. On that date defendant and Weitzel appeared for sentencing with their counsel. The statements of the assistant county attorney and defendant's attorney were not recorded, but apparently the county attorney's office fulfilled a commitment to not object to leniency.
Weitzel's case was considered first. The following record was made therein:
The trial court then sentenced Weitzel to 10 years in the state reformatory at Anamosa.
Defense counsel had not expected a prison sentence for an 18 year old first offender and made a more complete record when Whitehead came on for sentence. He pointed out that the information about the other crimes was in the presentence report because the boys cooperated with the police in the expectation of leniency. Defendant was also sentenced to 10 years in the reformatory. The court commented:
Counsel for defendant immediately filed a motion to withdraw the plea of guilty. At the hearing on the motion to withdraw the plea the assistant county attorney stated: '(T)he State would only say to the court that we would like to make it abidingly clear that we have no objection to the defendant withdrawing his plea of guilty, if the court should see fit to grant him his permission to do so.'
Record was then made as to the questioning of the boys by the police officers after they had admitted the crime here charged. The two police officers then asked them about other unsolved crimes. In the Weitzel case counsel for defendant offered to prove Weitzel would testify: 'that following his confession to this particular crime, the one that is subject to * * * this County Attorney's Information, that if he were to make admissions with reference to other offense, that it would go easier with him and that these particular matters would not be used against him.'
In the Whitehead case, Whitehead testified:
'That the officers who questioned him were Mike Larson and Bill Hanson, and that they told him he could have an attorney.
It was then that the boys confessed to the other breakings and enterings. No charges have been filed for any offense other than the one to which they pleaded guilty.
Trial court denied defendant's request to withdraw the plea of guilty finding defendant entered the plea voluntarily and with advice of counsel, and no claim of mistake, duress, or fraud was shown. Defendant appealed.
I. The motion to withdraw the plea of guilty was made after judgment and sentence. We have consistently held such motion is not timely under our statute which provides: 'At any time before judgment, the court may permit the plea of guilty to be withdrawn and other plea or pleas substituted.' Section 777.15, Code of Iowa; State v. Hellickson, Iowa, 162 N.W.2d 390, filed November 12, 1968; State v. Rinehart, 255 Iowa 1132, 1137, 125 N.W.2d 242, 245; State v. Warner, 232 Iowa 40, 41, 4 N.W.2d 243; State v. Tracy, 219 Iowa 1412 1415, 261 N.W. 527, 529; State v. Harper, 220 Iowa 515, 525, 258 N.W. 886, 891; State v. Van Klavern, 208 Iowa 867, 870, 226 N.W. 81, 83.
Our authorities which hold the granting of a motion to withdraw a plea of guilty within the sound discretion of the trial court are not applicable as they relate to motions made before judgment and sentence. State v. Hellickson, Iowa, 162 N.W.2d 390, filed November 12, 1968; State v. Krana, Iowa, 159 N.W.2d 413, 416; State v. Machovec, 236 Iowa 377, 380--383, 17 N.W.2d 843, 845--847.
The distinction is sound. A defendant should not be permitted to enter a guilty plea, gamble on the sentence and then move to withdraw the plea if he is disappointed with the severity of the sentence imposed. State v. Rinehart, 255 Iowa 1132, 1138, 125 N.W.2d 242, 245--246.
United States ex rel. McGrath v. LaVallee, 2 Cir., 319 F.2d 308, 314; United States v. Norstrand Corporation, 2 Cir., 168 F.2d 481, 482.
However, defendant here raises a constitutional question claiming the plea was entered involuntarily as a result of false promises of leniency. The state has not challenged the appeal as being untimely and we will therefore consider the motion to be in place of a habeas corpus action. See State v. Hellickson, supra, division II.
II. Machibroda v. United States, 368 U.S. 487, 493, 82 S.Ct. 510, 513, 7 L.Ed.2d 473, and citations; State v. Rife, 260 Iowa 598, 149 N.W.2d 846, 848; State v. Bastedo, 253 Iowa 103, 108--109, 111 N.W.2d 255, 258.
Defendant bases his motion on the claimed: (A) agreement of the county attorney not to oppose leniency; (B) statement of...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Sisco
...by the court alone after an informative and meaningful personal discussion with the accused in open court. VI. Citing State v. Whitehead, Iowa, 163 N.W.2d 899, 903, the state argues defendant's guilty plea should not be set aside because he has not at any time alleged That argument ignores ......
-
Schmidt v. State
...of the plea, and is neither deceived nor coerced." State v. Hinners , 471 N.W.2d 841, 843 (Iowa 1991) (quoting State v. Whitehead , 163 N.W.2d 899, 902 (Iowa 1969) ). A guilty plea is effectively a confession of committing the crime made under judicial oversight with representation by defen......
-
State v. Hinners, 90-497
...one who understands his situation, his rights, and the consequences of the plea, and is neither deceived nor coerced. State v. Whitehead, 163 N.W.2d 899, 902 (Iowa 1969) (quoting Cortez v. United States, 337 F.2d 699, 701 (9th Cir.1964)); see also Iowa R.Crim.P. 9 (establishing rules for pl......
-
State v. Lindsey
...by those in authority, and that by the plea he waives his right to a trial by jury. State v. Sisco, Iowa, 169 N.W.2d 542; State v. Whitehead, Iowa, 163 N.W.2d 899; State v. Rife, 260 Iowa 598, 149 N.W.2d 846; State v. Bastedo, 253 Iowa 103, 111 N.W.2d 255; State v. Kulish, 260 Iowa 138, 143......