Walker v. People

Decision Date25 July 1966
Docket NumberNo. 22112,22112
Citation160 Colo. 286,417 P.2d 14
PartiesJoe Sam WALKER, Plaintiff in Error, v. The PEOPLE of the State of Colorado, Defendant in Error. . En Banc
CourtColorado Supreme Court

Francis R. Salazar, Carl L. Harthun, Denver, for plaintiff in error. at

McWILLIAMS, Justice.

In 1949 Joe Sam Walker was convicted of murder in the second degree and was sentenced to a term of from eighty years to life in the state penitentiary. Upon review by writ of error, this judgment and sentence was affirmed. Walker v. People, 126 Colo. 135, 248 P.2d 287.

Some thirteen years after his conviction was upheld by this court, Walker filed with the trial court a motion for relief under Rule 35(b) Colo.R.Crim.P. Upon hearing the trial court denied this motion, holding in essence that the motion on its very face was legally insufficient to warrant the granting of any relief. By the present writ of error Walker now seeks reversal of the judgment denying his motion for relief under Rule 35(b).

Though the district attorney appeared in the trial court and resisted Walker's motion in this court the Attorney General nevertheless 'confesses error.' The Attorney General suggests that the matter should be remanded to the trial court with direction that it in turn should permit Walker to introduce evidence, if such he has, which would show or tend to show that certain of his constitutional rights have been violated.

At the hearing in the trial court Walker was not given the opportunity to offer anything of an evidentiary nature in support of the various and sundry allegations contained in his motion under Rule 35(b). The trial court did, however, hear oral argument both in support of, and in opposition to, the motion.

The Attorney General's position is that many, indeed most, of the matters asserted by Walker in his motion pose only issues which have already been considered and rejected by us in Walker v. People, supra; that certain other matters sought to be raised in the motion are of such nature that they too could be resolved on the record as already made; but the Attorney General then goes on to concede that at least one matter sought to be raised by the motion is of such nature that it could Only be resolved after a hearing in which Walker had the opportunity to present evidence.

The particular matter which the Attorney General concedes could Only be determined after an evidentiary hearing relates to Walker's claim that he did not receive a fair and impartial trial because of pretrial publicity. From a procedural standpoint, the Attorney General states that the instant case is governed by Roberts v. People, Colo., 404 P.2d 848, which incidentallay was decided subsequent to the time the matter was before the trial court.

With this position of the Attorney General we are in general accord. Certainly, many of the allegations in the motion are...

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 cases
  • People v. Salvador, 26334
    • United States
    • Colorado Supreme Court
    • July 28, 1975
    ...periods of time have elapsed since conviction. Sherbondy v. District Court, 170 Colo. 114, 459 P.2d 133 (1969); Walker v. People, 160 Colo. 286, 417 P.2d 14 (1966); Walker v. People, 169 Colo. 467, 458 P.2d 238 We have been limited in our review of this case because of the fact that only a ......
  • Walker v. People
    • United States
    • Colorado Supreme Court
    • August 25, 1969
    ...trial, could only be resolved after a full evidentiary hearing. We thereupon in what we will refer to as second Walker (Walker v. People, 160 Colo. 286, 417 P.2d 14) reversed the trial court and remanded the cause with directions that Walker's allegations be considered under the ruling of S......
  • McDaniel v. People
    • United States
    • Colorado Supreme Court
    • January 16, 1967
    ...of the rule announced in Roberts v. People, 158 Colo. ---, 404 P.2d 848 and, as was done in that case and in the later case of Walker v. People, Colo., 417 P.2d 14, the order and judgment of the trial court denying the Rule 35(b) motion is reversed and the matter is remanded for the holding......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT