Thompson v. Wood
| Decision Date | 04 March 1955 |
| Citation | 277 S.W.2d 472 |
| Parties | George H. THOMPSON, Petitioner, v. Jennings WOOD, Judge, Larue Quarterly Court, Respondent. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court — District of Kentucky |
J. Howard Holbert, Elizabethtown, for petitioner.
J. D. Buckman, Jr., Atty. Gen., Jo M. Ferguson, Asst. Atty. Gen., for respondent.
This is an original proceeding for a writ of prohibition, seeking to prohibit the respondent, Honorable Jennings Wood, as Judge of the Larue Quarterly Court, from proceeding further in the case of Commonwealth of Kentucky v. Thompson, pending in the Larue Quarterly Court, and for an order directing respondent to release Thompson from custody pending final determination of the case. A temporary writ of prohibition was granted by a Judge of this Court on January 24, 1955.
It is alleged in the petition, and shown by his affidavit, that on January 11, 1955, as the result of an automobile collision, Thompson was given a citation by a state policeman which charged hin with 'failing to grant right of way.' On that date he appeared in the Larue Quarterly Court before Judge Wood and, without being advised of his rights, was informed that if he would bring the sum of $19.50 and pay it to the court the lowest fine would be assessed against him; that he was permitted to leave for the purpose of securing the money and returning with it; that he returned with his employer and another, without the money, to consult with the respondent; that the next morning he employed an attorney to represent him in the matter; that upon the advice of his attorney he again appeared before the respondent on January 19, 1955 and moved the court for permission to change his plea from that of guilty to not guilty, but that respondent refused him permission to make the change in plea; that at the same time, on his motion, he was granted until January 24, 1955 within which to file his motion and grounds for a new trial, and was permitted to execute bond for his appearance on that day; that on January 19, when he appeared, a warrant was served upon him charging him with contempt of court, based upon the fact that he had failed to return to the court with the money on January 11; that on January 19 respondent stated to him that he had never heard of any one changing a plea of guilty to not guilty, and that Thompson had already been granted a trial and if anything was done toward granting him a new trial it would have to be done in a higher court.
Thompson alleged, and by his affidavit states, that he asked the respondent to vacate the bench on that date, to wit, January 19; that the respondent refused to consider the motion and announced he would have nothing more to do with the case and ordered Thompson committed to jail. Thompson further states that there was no valid judgment against him at the time of his commitment, and that he was never served with a warrant or summons, except the state police citation, which informed him of the nature of the charge against him. He does not claim that he ever filed any written motion and grounds for a new trial.
In response to these allegations made by petitioner, respondent shows by his written response, and by affidavits, that when Thompson appeared before respondent he was informed of his rights, entered a plea of guilty and was adjudged guilty on January 11, and was permitted by the court to go to get the money with which to pay his fine but that he never again appeared in court until January 24, 1955 when he came with his counsel, Mr. Holbert, at which time he filed a motion to have respondent to vacate the bench and grant a new trial, all of which respondent overruled, and remanded the petitioner to jail. This position of respondent is abundantly supported not only by...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Childers v. Stephenson
...to establish that this is the exceptional, extraordinary, or unusual case which justifies the use of the writ of prohibition. Thompson v. Wood, Ky., 277 S.W.2d 472; Murphy v. Thomas, Ky., 296 S.W.2d The writs of mandamus and prohibition are denied. ...
-
Bach v. Keith
...123. The familiar bases for granting prohibition have been discussed fully. Evans v. Humphrey, 281 Ky. 254, 135 S.W.2d 915; Thompson v. Wood, Ky., 277 S.W.2d 472; Murphy v. Thomas, Ky., 296 S.W.2d 469. The use of the writ of prohibition against a judge is a drastic and extraordinary remedy ......
-
Murphy v. Thomas
...the legislature considered such a fine so trivial that it did not provide for an appeal in these cases to the circuit court, Thompson v. Wood, Ky., 277 S.W.2d 472, and, if the fine is more than $20, the petitioner would have an adequate remedy by appeal. The rules governing situations of th......
-
Taustine v. Thompson
...that the judgments of conviction were not subject to collateral attack since they were not void. In two recent cases Thompson v. Wood, Ky., 277 S.W.2d 472, and Walters v. Fowler, Ky., 280 S.W.2d 523, this Court refused to grant relief by prohibition in similar I see no reason to violate our......