Wood v. Cox, Civ. A. No. 70-C-43-D.

Decision Date19 August 1970
Docket NumberCiv. A. No. 70-C-43-D.
PartiesEugene Francis WOOD, Petitioner, v. J. D. COX, Superintendent, Virginia State Penitentiary, Respondent.
CourtU.S. District Court — Western District of Virginia

William P. Robinson, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., Richmond, Va., for respondent.

OPINION and JUDGMENT

DALTON, Chief Judge.

This case comes before the court on a petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed in forma pauperis. The petition was originally filed on June 23, 1970, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia at Richmond, which ordered the case transferred to this court.

On September 23, 1965, petitioner was convicted in the Circuit Court of the City of Chesapeake of statutory burglary and received a sentence of four years. While serving this sentence, he escaped from a road camp. On recapture he was tried and convicted after a plea of guilty on two counts of grand larceny of two different automobiles. He was sentenced to a term of one year on each count, which sentences were to be served concurrently. Petitioner seeks to attack here the constitutionality of the two grand larceny convictions.

An initial question arises because petitioner has already served the sentences under attack here. Before beginning the service of such sentences, petitioner was also convicted of breaking and entering and two counts of escape in addition to receiving recidivist time for second felony conviction. He is currently serving time under one of the escape convictions. Since he received these other convictions before serving any time under the larceny sentences, he may receive credit for time served if he succeeds on the merits. Tucker v. Peyton, 357 F.2d 115 (4th Cir. 1966). Therefore, consideration of the grand larceny convictions is properly before the court.

Petitioner seeks to invalidate the grand larceny convictions on the grounds: (1) that the plea of guilty was not understandingly made because of petitioner's low "intelligent quotient (I.Q.)" and because he thought he was pleading guilty to unauthorized use of an automobile; and (2) the trial court erred in not making a determination of the voluntariness of the pleas entered.

These claims were presented to the Circuit Court of Pittsylvania County in a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. By written opinion dated December 30, 1968, that court denied the writ after examining the transcript of the trial but without granting a hearing. The Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia denied a writ of error to the judgment denying the writ on June 17, 1969. Therefore it appears that the petitioner has exhausted his state remedies. 28 U.S.C. § 2254.

Although a hearing was not held on petitioner's claims in the state court, it is not believed that a hearing is required here. The court believes that the claims are of an essentially frivolous nature and even if proved in a hearing would not entitle petitioner to relief.

Petitioner was represented by a court-appointed attorney at trial who advised him before he entered the pleas of guilty. The petitioner testified in his own behalf and in a thoroughly satisfying and able manner. The fact that petitioner may have a low I.Q. does not mean that he was unable to understand the proceedings. It is perfectly clear from the trial transcript of petitioner's testimony that he understood what was going on and what the stakes were. For example, the following question and answer are contained in the petitioner's testimony:

Q. And are you pleading guilty to the two indictments of car theft in Pittsylvania County?
A. Yes, sir.

Even if the petitioner actually felt that he was pleading guilty to the crime of unauthorized use of an automobile, the court is unable to find any prejudice which may have resulted. The minimum imprisonment which can be imposed is the same...

To continue reading

Request your trial
1 cases
  • State v. Lambert, 20214
    • United States
    • South Carolina Supreme Court
    • May 5, 1976
    ...may cause an appellate court to review the defendant's plea carefully, it does not necessarily preclude a valid plea. Wood v. Cox, 316 F.Supp. 1336, 1337 (W.D.Va.1970). The fact that appellant may have only a seventh grade education does not mean that he was unable to understand the proceed......

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