Underwood v. State, 47120
| Decision Date | 11 May 1974 |
| Docket Number | No. 47120,47120 |
| Citation | 214 Kan. 633,522 P.2d 457 |
| Parties | Benjamin Frank UNDERWOOD, Appellant, v. STATE of Kansas, Appellee. |
| Court | Kansas Supreme Court |
This is an appeal from an order denying a motion to vacate sentence filed pursuant to K.S.A. 60-1507. On April 13, 1971, the appellant-petitioner, Benjamin Frank Underwood, entered his plea of guilty to taking indecent liberties with a child under the provisions of K.S.A.1970 Supp. 21-3503. He was sentenced to confinement in the Kansas State Penitentiary for a period of three to twenty years. On August 31, 1972, the appellant filed a motion under K.S.A. 60-1507 to vacate his conviction and sentence. An evidentiary hearing was held in the district court on December 19, 1972, following which the motion was denied. The appellant has appealed to this court.
The appellant first contends that the trial court committed error by accepting his plea of guilty in violation of K.S.A.1970 Supp. 22-3210 without first advising appellant as to the maximum penalty which might be imposed upon acceptance of such plea and in failing to determine that there was a factual basis for the plea. The record shows that before the plea was accepted the trial court thoroughly interrogated the appellant as to the nature of the charge; his understanding of his situation; his opportunity to discuss the charge fully with his attorney, Mr. Russell; the absence of any threats or promises; his absolute right to trial by jury; and as to the voluntary nature of his plea. At the evidentiary hearing on the 60-1507 motion Mr. Russell testified that he had informed the appellant about the nature of the charge, the consequences of a plea of guilty and the possible sentence that could be imposed according to Kansas law. In view of the evidence before us we think it clear that the appellant fully understood the nature of the charges, the possible sentence, and the consequences of his plea of guilty and that his plea of guilty was voluntary and understandably made. We find that the appellant's first contention is without merit.
Appellant next maintains that his appointed counsel was derelict in not advising the court of the appellant's mental deficiency and in not requesting a continuance at the time of the preliminary hearing in magistrate court in order to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Vittitoe v. State
...may be rebutted by evidence that the defense counsel informed the accused of any mandatory minimum penalty, Underwood v. State, 214 Kan. 633, 522 P.2d 457, 458 (1974), or that the accused was apprised of the range of penalties at a prior hearing. People v. Ray, 130 Ill.App.3d 362, 84 Ill.De......
-
State v. Giddings
...unless it has in some way prejudiced the accused's right to a fair trial. (Cooper v. State, 196 Kan. 421, 411 P.2d 652; Underwood v. State, 214 Kan. 633, 522 P.2d 457.) The defendant has not shown she was prejudiced by the three-day delay which occurred here. She had access to her attorney;......
-
State v. Goodseal
...or prejudicial must depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. This court has ruled that delays of six days (Underwood v. State, 214 Kan. 633, 522 P.2d 457), thirteen days (Cooper v. State, 196 Kan. 421, 411 P.2d 652) and two days over a weekend (State v. Nading, supra) were not pr......
-
Noble v. State
...The arraigning court did not inform the defendant of the maximum penalties which could be imposed under law. In Underwood v. State, 214 Kan. 633, 522 P.2d 457 (1974), the petitioner argued on his 60-1507 motion that his sentence should be vacated because the trial court failed to inform him......