Henderson v. StateHenderson v. State
The opinion of the court was delivered by
This is an appeal from an order denying relief from a judgment and sentence challenged under the provisions of
The facts will largely сonsist of a chronological statement of petitioner’s numerous felonies and sentences in connection therewith.
On Novеmber 23, 1959, petitioner was sentenced on a plea of guilty to the Kansas State Industrial Reformatory at Hutchinson for a term as provided by law on separate counts of burglary in the 2nd degree and of larceny. The sentences were to run concurrently.
On the samе day he was similarly sentenced on two additional counts for burglary in the 2nd degree and larceny. These sentences were to run cоncurrently but they were to run consecutively to the sentences first imposed.
It appears that petitioner was granted a bench parole on the above matters but that the parole was revoked on February 1, 1960. On the same day the petitioner pled guilty tо three counts of malicious destruction of property. He was again sentenced to the State Industrial Reformatory on each of the three counts, the sentences to run concurrently.
The petitioner made application for commutation of sentence and the Governor did on November 3, 1961, commute all of the *656 sentences by reducing them to a single term of 10 to 20 years, which рetitioner continued to serve at the reformatory.
On June 29, 1962, the petitioner appeared before the district court of Reno County, Kansas, with his court appointed attorney, and entered a plea of guilty to a charge of escaping from the State Industrial Reformatory contrary to the provisions of
On May 10, 1966, the petitioner filed proceedings undеr the provisions of
Petitioner has appealed.
The appellant first contends that the court erred in sentеncing him to the State Industrial Reformatory rather than to the State Penitentiary as required by
It now appears that the appellant, on motion of the state, was ordered returned to the Reno County District Court for the correction of the sentence and the sentеnce was corrected to imprisonment in the State Penitentiary. Any basis that the appellant might have had for objection to thе sentence has now been corrected and no issue remains on this ground.
The appellant next contends that he had numerous fеlony convictions when he escaped from the State Industrial Reformatory and that he was therefore erroneously confined in the reformatory and should have been in the State Penitentiary. He reasons that since he was not validly confined he had the right to lеave and could not be guilty of escape.
We do not propose to labor the question of the effect of the numerous felony sentences received in a single day. Neither shall we labor the question of the effect of the Governor’s commutatiоn by which all of the sentences were reduced to one for 10 to 20 years in the State Industrial Reformatory. It will suffice to say that the aрpellant was in the custody of the state on numerous valid felony convictions which he does not challenge.
An escape mаy be justifiable where the arresting officer acted
*657
without authority rendering the arrest illegal.
(State v. Beebe,
We find no merit in appellant’s contention that
We are inclined to the belief that the legislаture used the words and phrases “confined”, “imprisoned”, “imprisonment and hard labor” and “imprisonment at hard labor” as more or less synonymоus. Our statutes providing for labor of prisoners (
“. . . Under the statute all persons confined in the penitentiary are required to perform labor. The punishment inflicted there is not clаssified as hard and easy labor, but all are required to labor under the direction of the warden. That officer is to prescribe the work that the prisoners shall do, proportionate to the health and capacity of each of them. (Gen. Stat. 1915, § 9977.) In some of thе penalties prescribed for crimes the legislature has added to imprisonment the old phrase ‘at hard labor,’ and in some it is omitted, but it is plain that it was not intended that the expression should add anything to the punishment. Under our system all prisoners alike are required to labor while confined in the penitentiary according to their strength and capacity, and so proportioned, it may be said to be hard labor for each prisoner. As used in the statute relating to attempts to commit a crime, the words ‘hard labor’ mean no more thаn compulsory labor. (Brown v. The State,74 Ala. 478 .) The punishment to be administered, so far as labor of prisoners in the penitentiary is concerned, is the same whether the words are included or omitted.”
Appellant contends that he was deprived of his constitutional rights because neither his сourt appointed counsel nor the court advised him of his right of appeal.
The appellant entered a plea of guilty to the charge of escape. *658 He complains of no error leading up to his plea. His plea of guilty could not have been affected by something that would have occurred after it was entered. A plea of guilty entered without any claim of coercion leaves no basis for appeal. There is no merit to the contention.
As it appeared from the files, the reсord of the case and the appellant’s petition that he was entitled to no relief, the trial court properly disposed of the contentions without a hearing.
The judgment is affirmed.
APPROVED BY THE COURT.