Swift v. People, 23709
| Decision Date | 12 April 1971 |
| Docket Number | No. 23709,23709 |
| Citation | 174 Colo. 259,488 P.2d 80 |
| Parties | Willie Howard SWIFT, Plaintiff in Error, v. The PEOPLE of the State of Colorado, Defendant in Error. |
| Court | Colorado Supreme Court |
Love, Cole, Murphy, Herbert, Hecox & Tolley, Lawrence A. Hecox, Colorado Springs, for plaintiff in error.
Duke W. Dunbar, Atty. Gen., John P. Moore, Deputy Atty. Gen., E. Ronald Beeks, James F. Pamp, Asst. Attys. Gen., Denver, for defendant in error.
The plaintiff in error, herein referred to as the defendant, was convicted of assault with intent to murder. The same jury in a separate proceeding determined that he had previously been convicted of a felony on three different occasions. The court sentenced him to life imprisonment as an habitual criminal under C.R.S.1963, 39--13--1. The conviction and sentencing were previously affirmed in Swift v. People, Colo., 465 P.2d 391 (1970).
In the interim, the United States Supreme Court decided Burgett v. Texas, 389 U.S. 109, 88 S.Ct. 258, 19 L.Ed.2d 319 (1967), in which it was held that if a defendant was not represented by counsel at a previous trial in which he was convicted of a felony, such conviction could not be used in sentencing him under an habitual criminal statute.
The defendant then filed a motion in the trial court under Crim.P. 35(b) to have his sentence vacated on the grounds that he had not been represented by counsel at his previous trials and convictions, as required by Burgett, supra. After two hearings, the trial court reaffirmed its original sentence of life imprisonment, finding that the defendant had been represented at each previous trial. We affirm.
In Burgett, the Supreme Court had no occasion to discuss procedures to be followed when a defendant questions the constitutional validity of a prior conviction offered in evidence by the prosecution. But in United States v. Martinez, 7 Cir., 413 F.2d 61, the Court held that the rationale of Burgett requires the district court to conduct a hearing to ascertain the constitutional validity of such prior convictions. United States v. Thoresen, 9 Cir., 428 F.2d 654.
Defendant contends that he was entitled to a jury determination of the issue of whether he was represented by counsel in the trials on his previous convictions.
Under the Habitual Criminal Act, it is the jury's function to determine whether the defendant has been previously convicted. Routa v. People, 117 Colo. 564, 192 P.2d 436 (1948). Whether such previous convictions were constitutionally procured involves a question of law for the court. In addition, under Crim.P. 35(b), the trial court determines all issues of fact and law.
One of the previous convictions upon which the habitual criminal conviction was predicated had taken place in New Mexico. It was in that proceeding that the defendant contends that he was without counsel. It appears from the record, however, that he was represented by counsel at all stages except sentencing. It may be that his constitutional rights were violated by reason of the absence of counsel at sentencing, as it appears from the record that he thought erroneously that the maximum sentence under the law was smaller than that which he had received. But any violation would relate only to that sentence and his remedy would therefore lie in New Mexico. Under C.R.S.1963, 39--13--1 et seq. the punishment as an habitual criminal is based upon prior Convictions, and the amount or validity of Sentence under a valid conviction is immaterial.
Judgment affirmed.
ON PETITION FOR REHEARING.
The defendant was sentenced under the Habitual Criminal Act, the jury having found that he had been thrice previously convicted of felonies. The record disclosed that, as to one of these convictions (in New Mexico), he was without counsel at the time of sentencing. We announced an opinion on March 22, 1971, reversing and remanding to the trial court for resentencing under the authority of Burgett v. Texas, 389 U.S. 109, 88 S.Ct. 258, 19 L.Ed.2d 319 (1967). Under the remand the court was not to consider the New Mexico conviction.
Thereafter the Attorney General filed a petition for rehearing presenting the point that the matter of sentencing was not a part of the 'conviction,' contemplated by our Habitual Criminal Act, C.R.S.1963, 39--13--1 et seq. Without acting upon the petition for rehearing, we withdrew the original opinion and an opinion written by District Judge Robert Miller was announced on April 12, 1971. This basically accepted the Attorney General's position and affirmed the sentence of the trial court.
The defendant then filed a petition for rehearing, calling attention to the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Sherman, 04CA2424.
...issues and make findings of fact and conclusions of law when ruling on a defendant's motion for postconviction relief, Swift v. People, 174 Colo. 259, 488 P.2d 80 (1971), although failure to do so may be harmless error. People v. Russell, 36 P.3d 92 (Colo. In this case, the trial court issu......
-
People v. Johnson
...C.R.S. 2016 ("The acceptance by the court of a plea of guilty ... acts as a conviction for the offense."); Swift v. People , 174 Colo. 259, 263, 488 P.2d 80, 82 (1971) (noting that in its general, popular, and "frequently ... ordinary" sense, the word "conviction" means the establishment of......
-
State v. Biegenwald
...previously been convicted" under Ariz.Rev.Stat.Ann. § 13-604 (amended 1980) not to require absence of pending appeal); Swift v. People, 174 Colo. 259, 488 P.2d 80 (1971) (interpreting the phrase "has twice previously been convicted" under Colo.Rev.Stat. § 16-13-101 (1973) (amended 1979) not......
-
People v. Renfrow, 26948
...vital question of fact of whether the defendant actually had been previously convicted was properly left to the jury. Swift v. People, 174 Colo. 259, 488 P.2d 80 (1971) Although the issue was not raised by the parties, we note that the provision for sentencing under the habitual criminal st......
-
Colorado's Habitual Criminal Act: an Overview
...7; People v. Anderson, 43 Colo.App. 178, 605 P.2d 60 (1979). *16. People v. Goodwin, 197 Colo. 47, 593 P.2d 326 (1979); Swift v. People, 174 Colo. 259, 488 P.2d 80 (1971); People v. District Court, 192 Colo. 375, 559 P.2d 235 (1977). 17. Colo. Const. Art. XVIII, § 4. *18. Martinez v. Tinsle......
-
Criminal Law Newsletter
...purposes of impeachment. Loper v. Beto, 405 U.S. 473 (1972). 10. People v. Shaver____Colo.____, 630 P.2d 600 (1981). 11. Swift v. People, 174 Colo. 259,488 P.2d 80 (1971) and People v. Gonzales, 38 Colo. App. 522, 565 P.2d 945 (1977). 12. People v. Colosacco, 177 Colo. 219,493 P.2d 650 (197......