State v. Wiley
| Decision Date | 21 April 1961 |
| Docket Number | No. 38368,38368 |
| Citation | 108 N.W.2d 774,260 Minn. 88 |
| Parties | STATE of Minnesota, Plaintiff, Respondent, v. Earthia B. WILEY, Defendant, Relator and Appellant. |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
1. The sufficiency of evidence to establish the guilt of relator can only be raised by an appeal or writ of error.
2. Relator was not deprived of assistance of counsel nor of benefits of due process clause by reason of mistakes of his counsel in the trial of his case.
3. Denial of the constitutional right to a public trial where the accused enjoys the benefit of competent counsel at every stage of the proceeding does not ipso facto violate the due process clause so as to deprive the court of its jurisdiction to proceed and thereby render its judgment void and subject to collateral attack in a habeas corpus or other proceeding.
4. It appears on the face of relator's petitions herein that the district court had jurisdiction of the relator and of the offense with which he was charged.
5. There is no statutory authority in this state whereby relator may compel district court to furnish him either a free transcript of the trial in which he was convicted of second-degree robbery or to have court-appointed counsel act for him without compensation after expiration of his right to appeal from the judgment of conviction. Earthia B. Wiley, in pro. per.
George M. Scott, County Atty., Per M. Larson, Asst. County Atty., Minneapolis, for respondent.
Relator petitions for writ of mandamus to compel the District Court of Sherburne County to order the clerk thereof to prepare at the expense of the county coipes of the records in a habeas corpus proceeding wherein the writ was denied after a hearing. Relator states he has taken an appeal from said denial although no such appeal is on file in this court. Relator also petitions for writ of mandamus to compel the District Court of Hennepin County to furnish defendant counsel at county expense to prepare his appeal from an order of that court in coram nobis proceedings; and to furnish transcript of the evidence in the original criminal case at county expense. In a letter to the clerk of this court defendant states that the writ of error coram nobis has neither been granted nor denied by the district court. There is no appeal on file in this court from any order in the coram nobis proceeding. The only appeal in this court is from the judgment of conviction which was entered in the District Court of Hennepin County on March 11, 1959.
Relator was arraigned before the District Court of Hennepin County on December 31, 1958, on a charge of robbery in the second degree and entered a plea of not guilty. On January 5, 1959, he appeared before the Honorable Rolf Fosseen at which time the assistant county attorney stated that relator desired to withdraw his plea of not guilty and to plead guilty as charged. Relator stated that he had his own counsel but that he had understood the matter would be heard on January 6 and was not then present in the courtroom. The hearing was continued to the next day, when the same procedure was repeated. The matter was again continued to January 7, 1959, at which time Richard Hunegs appeared as his counsel and stated that relator was going to withdraw his plea of not guilty and enter a plea of guilty. Relator was asked directly whether this was his wish and he replied in the affirmative. He was sworn and questioned as to his knowledge and understanding of his rights as a defendant under criminal procedure and of the consequences of pleading guilty. The court then asked defendant if there were any questions and his counsel replied in the negative, requesting that the matter be referred to the Department of Court Services for presentence investigation. The court so ordered.
Relator reappeared before the court on February 17, 1959, represented by the same counsel. The state moved for sentence. Relator was again sworn and questioned by the court, after which the court said that in view of statements made by relator the court was not inclined at the time to accept his plea of guilty to second-degree robbery. After discussion between relator and his counsel, the guilty plea theretofore entered was withdrawn and a plea of not guilty entered. Waiving jury trial, relator was tried before the court March 9, 1959, and found guilty. He reappeared, with Samuel Saliterman as counsel, on March 11, 1959, for sentence. He was again examined by the court and was permitted to address the court before pronouncement of sentence. Mr. Saliterman addressed the court at length in relator's behalf. Having been 20 years of age at the time of apprehension, relator was committed to the Youth Conservation Commission for an indeterminate term and is now detained at the Reformatory for Men in St. Cloud.
No appeal was taken from the robbery conviction within the statutory period. By numerous letters addressed to this court and to its clerk, commencing some 10 months after relator's conviction, relator has tried to obtain a review of his conviction even though he has repeatedly been informed by the clerk of the time limit within which an appeal from a judgment of conviction must be perfected.
On January 13, 1960, relator wrote to the clerk:
'I am initiating legal procedures persuant to attempting to obtain a new trial of my case * * *.'
On May 11, 1960, relator sent a letter and a document he termed a 'Writ of Error--Notice of Appeal' directly to the chief justice. The clerk again informed relator that the 6-month period in which to appeal from the judgment of conviction had expired.
On May 30, 1960, relator sent the chief justice a 'Motion for Review of Decision,' requesting review of an order of the District Court of Hennepin County denying and dismissing an application for a transcript of his trial because the time for appeal had expired. Relator alleged in this motion that prior to expiration of the statutory period for appeal he had prepared a 'Writ of Habeas Corpus (Coram Nobis),' but that it had been lost; that 2 months later he gave to his attorneys another 'Writ of Coram Nobis,' dated October 14, 1959, to be filed with the District Court of Hennepin County but that he had heard nothing from it. In this motion he asked that a writ of mandamus be issued to compel the Hennepin County District Court to furnish the portions of a trial transcript 'necessary for preparation of a formal appeal.'
On October 27, 1960, he petitioned this court to permit the filing of an appeal without payment of filing fees to obtain review of an order entered by the District Court of Sherburne County discharging a writ of habeas corpus theretofore obtained by relator.
On November 1, 1960, the clerk wrote relator as to affidavits required before his petition of October 27, 1960, could be considered.
On November 3, 1960, relator wrote the clerk for information on how to appeal from a denial of a writ of habeas corpus and how to obtain a transcript of the hearing without charge.
On November 7, 1960, the clerk again notified relator of the time requirement which applies to appeals and also informed him that habeas corpus was a civil proceeding and provided no basis for obtaining a free transcript.
On November 3, 1960, relator sent this court a 'Request for Court Order to Amend defective Return to Writ of Habeas Corpus,' in which he sought an order directed to the warden of the reformatory to produce and deliver complete minutes of the record of his trial, which apparently had been incorporated into the return made by the warden in the habeas corpus proceeding.
In December 1960 relator applied to this court for a writ of mandamus to compel the District Court of Hennepin County to grant a new trial. He also filed with the clerk of Hennepin County District Court a 'Notice of Appeal Writ of Error Coram Nobis' which stated that he will take appeal from the court's judgment of conviction.
Relator on January 19, 1961, wrote to the clerk for information as to the type of paper to be used in writing his appeal, which was promptly answered. On January 22, relator wrote the clerk for a copy of Minn.St. c. 605 and for a copy of an opinion of this court. The clerk replied January 30, again informing relator as to time requirements on appeal and advising him that the requested copy of the statutes could not be furnished by the clerk's office. Relator replied that the time requirements did not apply to him because he was now applying for a writ of coram nobis. The clerk, February 15, 1961, advised relator that his present appeal now on file with the clerk of the Hennepin County District Court is from the judgment of conviction entered in that court.
Since the time for appeal from the judgment of conviction has long since expired, it would be a needless expense to order a free transcript at this time or to provide for the services of a court-appointed attorney.
The evidence indicates that relator was 21 years of age at the time of his trial and conviction; that he is a high school graduate and had taken some extension courses at the University of Minnesota in advanced Spanish; that besides speaking English he could speak Spanish and French fluently and had some conversational knowledge of Portuguese, Italian, and a little German; that languages were a hobby; and that other hobbies were reading and writing.
The following questions and answers are taken from the court's questioning of relator before his withdrawal of the plea of guilty:
'A Yes.
'Q You and one James Joseph Duffy stole from the possession of Rose Herman the sum of $60.00, is that right?
'A Yes.
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Housing and Redevelopment Authority ex rel. City of Richfield v. Adelmann
... ... State v. Goins, 286 Minn. 54, 57, 174 N.W.2d 231, 233 (1970) (citing State v. Radosevich, 249 Minn. 268, 82 N.W.2d 70 (1957)). All parties agree, as they ... ...
-
Favors v. Jesson
..."The sufficiency of evidence to establish the guilt of relator can only be raised by an appeal or writ of error." State v. Wiley, 260 Minn. 88, 88, 108 N.W.2d 774, 775 (1961). In his petition, Favors claims that the commitment judge was biased against him on the grounds that the judge (1) m......
-
State v. Emmil
...v. Prince, 66 N.W.2d 796 (N.D.1954). Other States, including the State of Minnesota, have followed this same rule. State v. Wiley, 260 Minn. 88, 108 N.W.2d 774 (1961). What we have said above ordinarily would dispose of this appeal. However, because the defendant might feel that his rights ......
-
State v. Wilson
...own, has adhered strongly to this principle. See, State ex rel. Elkins v. County of Ramsey, 257 Minn. 21, 99 N.W.2d 895; State v. Wiley, 260 Minn. 88, 108 N.W.2d 774. However, for reasons hereinafter stated, we have examined the state of the record, and the evidence. This is a criminal case......