In this habeas proceeding, two issues are raised. Mason pled guilty to eight nine-year-old indictments for passing fictitious checks and escape. He asserts there is no record of this hearing held in chambers and thus the state cannot meet its burden of establishing the voluntary and intelligent nature of the pleas. Boykin v. Alabama,
Mason was indicted in March, 1964, by the Franklin County Grand Jury on seven counts of passing fictitious checks. In October, 1966, he was indicted for escape. In 1965 he was arrested in Alabama and convicted of burglary, serving eight of a ten-year sentence there. He was returned to Franklin County following parole in late November, 1973, and on December 3,1973, he pled guilty and was given probated sentences of two years, consecutive, on each, of the check counts and twelve months for escape. On March 18,1976, his probation was revoked for failing to report, leaving the state without permission, and his indictment and trial for burglary in *293 Elbert County while on probation. On January 8, 1978, Mason filed his petition for the writ of habeas corpus. At a hearing on April 10,1978, his petition was denied and he appeals. We affirm.
1. The extrinsic evidence offered at the habeas corpus hearing authorized the finding that the guilty pleas were in fact voluntarily and knowingly entered. Boykin v. Alabama, supra;
Roberts v. Greenway,
Following this testimony, Mason testified, corroborating the judge’s testimony with regard to the above statements concerning Mason’s constitutional rights and fully establishing that he knew at the time of making the pleas that he understood his rights. He also freely admitted the checks had been forged and issued by him, and at no point did Mason testify that he felt coerced into entering his pleas of guilty. Enumerations of error 1, 2, and 5 are without merit.
2. Having fully and voluntarily entered a plea of guilty, Mason cannot now raise as a defense his right to a speedy and public trial. "In the case of a plea of guilty, such plea would waive any defense known and unknown .. .”
Balkcom v. McDaniel,
Judgment affirmed.
