State v. Williams, 46056
| Decision Date | 22 January 1972 |
| Docket Number | No. 46056,46056 |
| Citation | 208 Kan. 480,493 P.2d 258 |
| Parties | STATE of Kansas, Appellee, v. Paul WILLIAMS, Appellant. |
| Court | Kansas Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court
1. Where a prisoner is committed to the State Penitentiary under a sentence confining him at hard labor for a term less than life and he is permitted to live in a dormitory outside the walls of that institution, his subsequent unauthorized departure from the dormitory constitutes the crime of escape as defined by K.S.A. 21-734.
2. A guilty plea induced by a prosecuting attorney's notice of intention to invoke the Habitual Criminal Act, K.S.A. 21-107a, is not rendered involuntary for that reason alone. To render such a plea involuntary the record must show unusual circumstances leading to the plea of guilty of such nature as to deprive the plea of its voluntary character.
3. A criminal prosecution for the crime of escape is not prohibited under the double jeopardy clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution or Section Ten of the Bill of Rights of the Constitution of Kansas merely because the escapee was, upon his recapture, subjected to discipline by the prison authorities for the prison discipline violation involved.
Tom Boone, Leavenworth, argued the cause, and was on the brief, for appellant.
Patrick J. Reardon, County Atty., argued the cause, and Vern Miller, Atty. Gen., and John A. Price, Special Prosecutor, were with him on the brief, for appellee.
This is a direct appeal from a plea of guilty to the offense of escape without breaking in violation of K.S.A. 21-734. The appellant, Paul Williams, had previously been sentenced to the Kansas State Penitentiary at Lansing, Kansas, for the offense of murder for a term of fifteen (15) years by the Shawnee County District Court. On February 5, 1970, a complaint was filed charging appellant with the crime of escape without breaking. On February 9, 1970, appellant appeared in court and counsel was appointed to represent him. On February 20, 1970, appellant was bound over to stand trial in district court for the charge of escape without breaking. Several preliminary motions were filed on behalf of the defendant which are not material here. On March 6, 1970, appellant was arraigned and entered his plea of guilty to the charge of escape without breaking as charged in the information.
Prior to the acceptance of the plea of guilty by the district court a colloquy was held between the court and appellant in which the appellant stated that he wished to waive the reading of the information and that he had a full understanding of the charge. In the colloquy the court explained to the appellant the statutory penalty for the offense which was a term not to exceed three (3) years to commence at the expiration of the sentence which appellant was then serving. Appellant stated that he was entering his plea of guilty freely and voluntarily and that he was doing so because he felt he was guilty. He further stated that he understood that he had a right to trial by jury and that he desired to waive that right. He further stated that he was satisfied with the services of his attorney. The court questioned appellant as to the factual situation upon which the plea of guilty was based. Appellant stated that he had left the outside dormitory at the penitentiary, that he was gone approximately twenty-two (22) hours and that he was picked up by a highway patrolman. The court accepted appellant's plea of guilty and thereupon entered judgment finding that the appellant was guilty of escape without breaking as charged in the information. The court then imposed the statutory sentence of confinement at hard labor at the Kansas State Penitentiary for a term not to exceed three (3) years to commence at the expiration of appellant's term previously imposed for murder which he was serving at the time of the escape.
The appellant raises three (3) points on this appeal:
(1) The information did not state an offense under the Criminal Code of the State of Kansas. In his brief appellant contends that he could not be guilty of the offense of escape without breaking since he was not confined behind bars at the time of the escape.
(2) It was improper for the court to accept the appellant's plea of guilty as he was coerced by the State into entering such a plea because the county attorney stated to appellant's attorney that if the appellant was tried and convicted the county attorney would request the imposition of the Habitual Criminal Act, K.S.A. 21-107a.
(3) It was error for the court to sentence the appellant to confinement and hard labor at the Kansas State Penitentiary for the term prescribed by statute for the reason that he had already been punished administrately by the State of Kansas by the taking away of his credit for good time accumulated by the appellant during the period he had been serving on the murder charge prior to his escape.
Appellant's first contention is that he had to be confined behind bars at the time of the escape in order to be guilty of the offense of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Pichon
...on work release); Tucker v. United States, 251 F.2d 794 (9th Cir.1958) (while in private hospital for treatment); State v. Williams, 208 Kan. 480, 493 P.2d 258 (1972) (in outside dormitory); State v. Gordon, 203 Kan. 69, 453 P.2d 80 (1969) (in outside barracks); Commonwealth v. Hughes, 364 ......
-
State v. Harlin
...prosecution under criminal laws for the same conduct. See Collins v. State, 215 Kan. 489, 524 P.2d 715 (1974), and State v. Williams, 208 Kan. 480, 493 P.2d 258 (1972). The issue before us may be more accurately stated as being whether two cases of the United States Supreme Court require th......
-
State v. Procter
...A.2d 804; State v. Williams (1960), 57 Wash.2d 231, 356 P.2d 99; State v. Maddox (1973), 190 Neb. 361, 208 N.W.2d 274; State v. Williams (1972),208 Kan. 480, 493 P.2d 258; Shuman v. Nevada (1974), 90 Nev. 227, 523 P.2d The Fifth Amendment double jeopardy standards of the United States Const......
-
State v. Weekley
...v. Salazar, 8 Cir., 505 F.2d 72; Hutchison v. United States, 10 Cir., 450 F.2d 930; Alex v. State, Alaska, 484 P.2d 677; State v. Williams, 208 Kan. 480, 493 P.2d 258; State v. Tise, Me., 283 A.2d 666; Commonwealth v. Sneed, Mass.App., 322 N.E.2d 435; People v. Bachman, 50 Mich.App. 682, 21......