Woodruff v. State, 44078
| Decision Date | 13 June 1966 |
| Docket Number | No. 44078,44078 |
| Citation | 187 So.2d 883 |
| Court | Mississippi Supreme Court |
| Parties | E. L. WOODRUFF v. STATE of Mississippi. |
John W. Whitten, Jr., c. Sidney Carlton, Sumner, for appellant.
Joe T. Patterson, Atty. Gen., by G. Garland Lyell, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., Jackson, for appellee.
E. L. Woodruff filed his petition in circuit court for writ of error coram nobis. After hearing the evidence offered by the petitioner and the State, the trial court denied the writ and dismissed the petition; Woodruff appealed. We affirm.
The judgment sought to be vacated was entered before the decision in Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335, 83 S.Ct. 792, 9 L.Ed.2d 799 (1963). The question for our decision is whether, under all the circumstances, the trial judge was justified in finding that petitioner was not denied counsel in violation of the guarantees afforded by the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
Petitioner was arrested in Sunflower County, Mississippi, on March 9, 1962, and jailed at Greenwood in Leflore County. At that time he was under several sentences, but was free on indefinite suspension. He was given no preliminary hearing on the new charges for which he was arrested, and five days after his arrest his suspension was revoked, and he was returned to the penitentiary, which is in Sunflower County. On September 3, 1962 the Tallahatchie County Grand Jury jointly indicted petitioner and one Scott on five separate charges of burglary. Some time after his arrest, petitioner requested that the sheriff of Tallahatchie County and the district attorney for that district come to the penitentiary. They went to see him, and petitioner stated to the district attorney and sheriff that he would plead guilty to the five charges of burglary if the sentences would run concurrently.
On September 5, 1962, petitioner and Scott were removed to Tallahatchie County to answer the indictments for burglary. Scott had hired Shed Roberson and Semmes Luckett, two able attorneys. Petitioner was indigent and had hired no attorney. While petitioner and Scott were waiting for Scott's attorneys to arrive at the courthouse, petitioner asked Scott the following question: 'What in the world do you want an attorney for?' When Attorey Roberson arrived the petitioner was present at all times when Roberson conferred with Scott, and the trial judge was justified in finding that petitioner had the benefit of the advice and counsel Roberson gave Scott, although Roberson had been employed to represent Scott only. Petitioner was present at all times when the district attorney and Attorney Roberson were working out the 'package deal' for guilty pleas by Scott and petitioner with all sentences running concurrently. Pleas of guilty were entered by Scott and petitioner to the five indictments, and Scott and petitioner received identical sentences of seven years on each indictment, the sentences to run concurrently. Thus, while the maximum sentences could have been thirty-five years, both Scott and petitioner actually received seven years. There is no showing that the interests of Scott and petitioner were not identical.
Petitioner is sixty-two years of age, and his attorneys say he is a pathological...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Caldwell v. State
...375 U.S. 2, 84 S.Ct. 80, 11 L.Ed.2d 41 (1963). We accepted Gideon 's retroactive application to final judgments, see Woodruff v. State, 187 So.2d 883, 884 (Miss.1966), without discernible impairment of the viability of the republic, nor did the sun cease to rise and Beyond these points, the......
-
Smith v. State, 53564
...So.2d 1184 (Miss.1982); Spears v. State, 278 So.2d 443 (Miss.1973); Taylor v. State, 285 So.2d 172 (Miss.1973). See also Woodruff v. State, 187 So.2d 883 (Miss.1966), cert. den. 386 U.S. 919, 17 L.Ed.2d 790, 87 S.Ct. 881 (1977). Nonetheless, the petitioner's plea that this Court stay its ha......
-
Woodruff v. Cook
...prosecuted on appeal to the Mississippi Supreme Court where the judgment of the lower court was affirmed June 13, 1966. Woodruff v. State, Miss., 187 So.2d 883. Having exhausted his state remedies, Woodruff presented his petition for a writ of habeas corpus to this Court. The petition sets ......
-
Biloxi Motor Co. v. Barry
...of the claimant, who everyone admits is an honest and dedicated employee. I adhere to our former opinion., which is reported in 187 So.2d 883 (Miss.1966). Justice RODGERS joins me in this dissent, and authorizes me to say that he believes it is obvious that this case is controlled by Lindse......