Williams v. State

• Decision Date: 10 February 1969
• Docket Number: No. 53800,No. 1,53800,1
• Citation: Williams v. State, 437 S.W.2d 82 (Mo. 1969)
• Parties: James Eddie WILLIAMS, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

Page 82

437 S.W.2d 82

James Eddie WILLIAMS, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

No. 53800.

Supreme Court of Missouri, Division No. 1.

Feb. 10, 1969.

Wm. G. O'Donnell, St. Louis, for appellant.

Norman H. Anderson, Atty. Gen., L. J. Gardner, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.

HOUSER, Commissioner.

This is an appeal from a judgment denying a motion for postconviction relief under Criminal Rules 27.25 and 27.26, V.A.M.R., to set aisde a judgment of conviction and allow the withdrawal of a plea of guilty.

An information filed in the St. Louis Court of Criminal Correction charged James Eddie Williams with illegal sale of a stimulant drug. § 195.240, RSMo 1959, V.A.M.S. He was represented by attorney James Bell. Williams pleaded not guilty. Thereafter an amended information was filed charging him with the same offense and alleging four prior convictions of felonies. Williams and his attorney filed a written waiver of trial by jury and consent to trial by the court, but thereafter and on April 25, 1967 both appeared before the court, formally withdrew the plea of not guilty and Williams entered a plea of guilty. In open court the judge extensively examined Williams, in the presence of his attorney, receiving answers from Williams from which the following was made to appear: Williams had discussed with his attorney and understood the consequences of entering a plea of guilty; that by so doing he was admitting his guilt; that he could not at a later time withdraw his plea of guilty; that under both federal and state constitutions he was entitled to be tried by a jury and that a jury would be made available to him if he so desired. Williams conceded and represented that no one had persuaded, threatened or made promises to him to make the plea but that it was his voluntary act; that his attorney was of his own chossing and that he was satisfied with the advice given him by his counsel and with his services; that his attorney had discussed with him the range of punishment that he might be given by the court. He knew the range of punishment, and he understood that the court was not bound by any impressions the defendant or his lawyer may have had; that it was purely within the realm of the court to assess the punishment. The court asked for a statement of the facts in the case and asked Williams to listen as the facts were recited by the assistant circuit attorney, as follows:

'Your Honor, on the evening of November 5, 1966, at about 9:45 p.m., at 4007 Olive, Apartment No. 7, City of St. Louis, Missouri, a patrolman was stopped by a citizen who stated they were selling 'splash' at this location, and they viewed some photographs and so forth at police headquarters. Subsequently other police went to Apartment No. 7 at 4008 Olive and Patrolman Harris knocked on the door and recognized Williams from a photograph in the Police Department files and that the defendant sold him white powder in tin packets for the sum of a five dollar bill and a one dollar bill, which was marked money; and after that sale was made Officer Harris turned and went out of the apartment and Patrolmen DeOliveras and Eichelberger went in and when they searched this defendant they found the marked five and one dollar bills that Patrolman Harris had been given, that money being the personal property of Patrolman DeOliveras. When they took this drug down to the Police Department Laboratory it was turned over to Cordell Brown and he examined it and it contained the drug amphetamine. I forget which one of the amphetamine drugs it was at this time, but the weight was 4.98 grams of amphetamine that is on the list designated by the Missouri Division of Health to be a stimulant or potent drug.'

The court then asked Williams if he had listened to the statement and whether those were the facts, to which the defendant answered 'Yes, sir.' Defendant's counsel then stated to the court that defendant was addicted to heroin, and asked the court to defer sentencing until a parole investigation could be made. The court asked defendant if he understood that if a presentence investigation was ordered it would be the court's function to grant or deny any application for probation, and that he would give 'absolutely no indication that parole would be granted'; that a denial of probation would not be the basis for a withdrawal of the plea of guilty; that his previous conviction of felonies was a consideration in determining whether probation should be allowed 'and in most cases if not all it would prevent probation.' Williams indicated full understanding of these facts. The court then stated that he wanted it clearly understood that the court was not indicating 'in even the slightest degree' that it would grant probation; that four prior convictions would weigh heavily against any probation. The court then ordered a presentence investigation.

On May 9, 1967 Williams wrote the judge a letter asking permission to withdraw his plea of guilty, stating 'Reasons too numerous to mention, legally valid, prompt me to seek disposition of this cause through trial as I originally planned.' This request was not formally acted upon. On June 5, 1967 Williams was brought before the court, in the presence of his attorney James Bell, and was granted allocution. Both Williams and his attorney indicated that they had no legal cause to show why sentence should not be imposed. The court then sentenced Williams to 7 years' imprisonment (thus accepting the state's recommendation on the extent of the punishment). Probation was denied but jail time was allowed. Thereupon Williams orally asked leave to withdraw his plea, stating that when he pleaded guilty he was under the impression that he 'would have to go to the hospital at Lexington'; that while he was not promised probation he was 'led to believe certain things by certain actions.' Leave to withdraw the plea was denied.

The motion for postconviction relief was filed in September, 1967 and heard December 18, 1967. At the hearing of this motion Williams testified that his attorney had told him when he started to represent him that 'it would not be any bother to get the case dismissed'; that before he withdrew his plea of not guilty his attorney told him he 'didn't have a chance going to trial' but that he had a chance, if he pleaded guilty, to get probation and 'go to Forth Worth for a cure'; that it was on this basis that he pleaded guilty. He testified that he cooperated with police officers in trying to 'clear up the traffic' in amphetamine, and that they promised him that if he helped them 'they would do everything they could to help (him) on this rap'; that they would 'give (him) a chance to go straight.' Williams acknowledged that the court had questioned him thoroughly about the consequences of entering a plea of guilty, but suggested that 'usually the judge is not aware of what has happened in regard to 'the stipulation'; and, therefore, I disregarded what he was saying at that time as just part of the routine, and I felt that I was supposed to plead guilty in order to gain the benefit of the parole.' He further acknowledged that the court did not indicate that he would grant probation; that he knew that his prior record would be considered, and that he recalled the court stating that if probation was denied this would be no basis for withdrawal of the plea, but that he 'felt it was just routine'; that he was 'more or less fooled into pleading guilty'; that the plea was not voluntary because he 'felt there were certain legal questions that could be brought up that had bearing on the case,' viz., that his arrest and the search and seizure were illegal and that neither of these questions had been tested by his counsel; that he had a 'strong case' because his constitutional rights had been violated.

One of the patrolmen acknowledged that Williams had furnished information to the police and to federal agents. He testified that while he personally made no promise to Williams that he would be put on probation, he did tell Williams that he would notify the circuit attorney's office about anything Williams did to help them so he would know about it, and that the circuit attorney was 'aware of everything.'

Citing Criminal Rule 27.25, ¹ appellant's first point is that sentence should not have been imposed until appellant's motion to withdraw his plea of guilty had been acted upon. Criminal Rule 27.25 relates to the time for the making of a motion to withdraw a plea...