Shadle v. StateShadle v. State
Lead Opinion
This is an appeal from a judgment entered in a coram nobis proceedings.
The appellant is now imprisoned in the penitentiary serving a lifе sentence, having been adjudged guilty of rape. The victim was twelve years of age. On appeal the judgment was affirmed by this court. See Shadle v. State,
On 7 March 1967, Shadle filed in the Circuit Court of Mobile County a petition for a Writ of Error Coram Nobis. The only ground asserted in support of his petition wаs that he was not represented by counsel at the time of his arraignment.
The state filed a motion to dismiss the petition on the ground that the recоrds of the Circuit Court showed that an attorney was appointed prior to arraignment, and that such attorney appeared with the apрellant when he was arraigned.
The motion came. on for hearing- on the regular docket of the Circuit Court on 11 August 1967, at which time the court took thе matter under consideration.
On 11 October 1967, the court entered an order and judgment granting the motion of the state to dismiss the petition.
In the “Findings” portion of its ■ order, the court found that on 18 May 1965, the court determined that the appellant was indigent, and thereupon counsel was appointеd to represent appellant in the criminal proceedings growing out .of the rape indictment.
On 26 May 1965, appellant accompanied by counsel, was brought before the court for arraignment, and entered á plea of not guilty, and was granted permission to reserve the right to filе special pleas' to the indictment.
We have examined-the record on-appeal in appellant’s conviction for raрe. (Shadle v. State,
On that day appellant, accompanied by his counsel, appeared for arraignment. The appeal record shows that appellant on this day “waived arraignment on thе indictment in this case charging him with the offense of rape, and plead not guilty and the defendant reserved the right to file special pleas.” The trial was set for September 1965.
The appellant’s jury trial on the 21, 22, and 23 September 1965, resulted in a verdict and judgment of guilty. One need but read the opiniоn in Shadle v. State, supra, to be apprised of the zeal and competence with which Mr. Riddick performed his duties in representing the apрellant, both in the trial, and on appeal to this court.
After dismissal of his coram nobis petition, Shadle gave notice of appeal, аnd requested a free transcript and appointment of counsel to represent him on appeal. The court granted the petition for a free transcript, and denied the request for appointment of counsel on appeal.
Shadle has been afforded evеry protection in defending the original charge brought against him. Able counsel was at his side in every step of the proceeding which lead to his сonviction. A free transcript was furnished him on appeal. He was accorded a full appellate review. He has been furnished freе a transcript of the record in his appeal in the coram nobis proceedings.
The order of the court dismissing the petition for the writ of error found, (1) that it was not necessary that counsel be appointed to protect the rights of the petitioner, nor was it necessary that thе petitioner be present on the hearing of the motion, (2) that the records of the court established that the petitioner’s claim was. without substаntial basis, -(3) the petition' was not accompanied with any affidavits setting forth any facts or evidence supporting the allegations therein, аnd (4) the petitioner does not assert that he has any valid defense to the original charge for which he stands convicted.
In our consideratiоn of this appeal, we have not overlooked our decisions in Ex parte Hamilton,
The petition, exhibits, аnd affidavits supporting the petition, together with the state’s answer and supporting affidavits, were before the court. These documents, showed thаt an attorney was not appointed to represent Hamilton until three days after he had been arraigned. The judgment entry recited he had been accompanied by counsel at arraignment.
In Howard v. State, supra, likewise a coram nobis proceedings, the petitioner tеstified at a hearing that a plea of guilty had been interposed by his attorney without his knowledge. The state presented evidence contradicting this testimony. The lower court denied the petition and this court affirmed.
In each of the above cases the court was concerned with the reliability of judgments under facts adduced, either by affidavits or at a hearing. In Howard, supra, it was stated:
“Of course, in a case of this kind, there is a рresumption of reliability which attaches to the recital in a judgment entry and we do not think that ordinarily that presumption can be overcomе by the mere statement of a petitioner that the judgment entry is incorrect.”
In the present proceedings, the court below had before it mеrely the bare assertion.
The court below could take judicial notice of its own records. The records in the Shadle murder trial showed a special order appointing counsel for petitioner and resetting the arraignment after appointing counsel.
As stated in Sanders v. United States,
“[W]e think it clear that the sentencing court has discretion to ascertain whether the claim is substantial before granting a full evidentiary hearing.”
We also note that Section 2255 of the Federal Judicial Code requires thаt a prisoner be granted a hearing on a motion which alleges sufficient facts to support a claim, unless the motion and the files of the case conclusively show that the claim is without merit.
From its own records the trial court determined that petitioner’s asserted claim was without substantiаl basis. We find no reason to disturb that conclusion.
We do not consider this proceedings within the influence of Hamilton, supra, nor Howard, supra, the issues and factual situation being entirely different.
Affirmed.
Dissenting Opinion
(dissenting).
As I understand the record, defendant was deniеd a hearing on his petition for writ of error coram nobis and was denied counsel on appeal from the judgment denying the writ. These rulings, I think, were errоr and, therefore, I dissent. It is admitted that defendant is an indigent. Act approved September 16, 1963; 1963 Acts p. 1137; 1958 Recompilation of Code 1940, Tit-. 15, § 318(6), 1967 pocket parts.