*1 P.2d 331 Appellee, Arizona, STATE GRISWOLD, Appellant.
Francis Hamilton 1717.
No. of Arizona. Court
In Banc.
July Gen., Nelson,
Gаry Atty. Norval K. Gen., Atty. Jesperson, Former Asst. C. Gen., Smith, Atty. Darrell F. Former Phoenix, appellee. Giles, Moore, by M. Charles &Giles Haralson, Haralson, by Dale
Barber & Tucson, appellant.
STRUCKMEYER, Justice. October, petitioner, the 4th of On Griswold, killed herein, Hamilton Francis Muriel thirty years, Elsa his wife over charged murder He was Griswold. March, 18th of and on the first the re- plea of entered in the second duced a hear- 30th, gree. On March to a sentenced mitigation, he was ing prison of the state imprisonment in term than for- nor more thirty-six than not less convic- years. From the sentence ty affirmed, This appealed. *2 Griswold, 577, 11, State 101 Ariz. 422 P.2d Federal Rule Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, 1st, 693. provide did not July until 1966, plea guilty that a of could not be ac- questions presented dispo- Two cepted from a though rep- defendant even appeal, being sition on Griswold’s the first resented “addressing counsel without Superior Apache whether Court of personally” defendant to determine necessary jurisdiction had the County consequences whether he understood “the hear and determine the case the sec- plea.” 2nd, 1969, of the On the Su- ond, whether the sentence was excessive. June preme Boy Court of United question No to the constitu- raised as 238, Alabama, kin v. 89 S.Ct. adequacy procedures tional at the 274, L.Ed.2d where defendant accepted time the trial court Griswold’s represented counsel the Alabama plea guilty of to second murder. Court, procedural require extended the any questions Nor were raised as to ments of Federal Rule 11 to statе courts propriety of the court’s denial of certain holding: pre-trial motions such as for of
venue, pro- for a trial continuance and for error, plain “It on the face of the of duction real evidence. record, accept peti- judge trial for the
Thereafter, April 8th, quilty plea on an affirma- Griswold tioner’s without filed petition showing intelligent with this of court a for writ tive that was coram voluntary.” nobis. We directed that the writ is- At at 89 S.Ct. sue, Superior and ordered the Court of L.Ed.2d Apache County hearing to hold a deter- accepting judge The trial Griswold’s One, questions: mine two whether Gris- not, course, plea guilty could of know of fully rights wold understood his and the constitutionally only permissible consequences plea guilty of prоcedures were to be those which it; Two, time he entered promul- Court had United States plea Griswold entered his practice gated in criminal for use guilty degree mur- crime of second courts. Neither was he the federal district der. necessary precognition to endowed with the A hearing Johns, was held in St. Arizo- anticipate the statements na, May, 1968, on the 28th of the Honora- presence made in the of the accused could Murry, Judge, presiding. ble Porter upon expression of not be relied as a true Twenty-five findings of fact were returned his wishes. questions to this court and both were an- granting trial adversely Judge swered Mur- to Griswold. plea of not fense motion to withdraw the ry defendant, found that “The Francis degree, em- the first Griswold, fully Hamilton understood his upon procedures: these barked consequences plea plea at the time he entered his up Mr. “THE Stand Griswold. COURT: guilty,” defendant, and “The Ham- Francis (Defendant up) stood Francis Hamilton Griswold, voluntarily plea ilton entered his Griswold, charge of murder in the to the to the crime of second felony, your degree, what murder.” plea? At the plea time Griswold entered his Guilty. “MR. GRISWOLD: is, guilty, May Arizona Rules of Criminal provided Procedure Let the record “THE COURT: show quilty Now, accepted entry guilty. not be it, from a then, represented who was not I as understand Mr. by counsel consequences until plea just with- of such entered has been entered explained any regard promises Rule him. out sort Rules of penalty? Criminal 17 A.R.S. Procedure. consequencеs right. rights and the That is
“MR. POWELL:
testified:
Griswold
you and
And after
“THE COURT:
“Q
you
considering
Defendant
At
have advised the
Schuelke
you
went
?
and at the time
actually changed your
into court
right, and
That is
“MR. POWELL:
your thought
plea, what was
matter before
request a
on the
*3
you might have to serve
amount of time
sentencing.
Prison ?
in the Arizona State
Prosecuting Attor-
(The
“MR. GREER:
Well,
years
ten
“A
it
have been
May
I was
the record further show
ney)
life.”
the Defendant
called
Counsel and
statutory punishment
he
for sec-
repeated
it was his will
me
This is the
murder;
say
attorney, Edwin
plea,
degree
him
it
His
enter this
and I did hear
ond
”
*
**
the statute
at that
that he read
time.
R.
testified
degree
Griswold
second
every procedural
doWe
not view
commit
not
told him that the
would
automatically giving rise
such
error as
be im-
himself as to what sentence
required.
prejudice that a reversal is
Due
The record <5f
posed.
13-453.
A.R.S. §
process under the Constitution of
Unit
degree mur-
arraignment
on the second
be satisfied
re
ed States can sometimes
counsel
that both
der
establishes
turning to the trial
for the determi
had
advised Griswold
have
procedurally
nation which
should
conclusively es-
think it is
We
e.g.
See
been made at an earlier time.
intelligently en-
tablished that Griswold
States,
218,
388 U.S.
87
Wade v. United
guilty to second
tered his
1926,
1149,
v.
18
S.Ct.
L.Ed.2d
Jackson
1774,
murder.
Denno,
12
368,
L.
84 S.Ct.
court re-
question which this
The second
908,
Ed.2d
1 A.L.R.3rd 1205. Sometimes
into
Superior
examine
quested the
Court to
rights have been
where
constitutional
was the voluntariness
wanting
holdings
found
have been
compulsive cir-
upon many
Griswold relies
prospectivе only.
See
Johnson
in-
his claim
grounds for
cumstances
882,
Jersey,
New
16 L.Ed.2d
U.S.
con-
principally
but we
voluntariness
S.Ct. 1772.
this court’s decision
petition
in his
averments
with the
cerned
Application
Billie,
103 Ariz.
436 P.
he was
coram nobis
for a writ of
retroactivity
2d
we examined into the
guilty because
coerced into
holding
Court’s
in In re
money
attorneys demanded more
Gault,
L.Ed.
U.S.
87 S.Ct.
alleged:
It was
trial.
2d
give
and decided that we would
prospective application only. We hold that
(4) days before
“Approximately four
apply
Boykin
we will
decision
Al
trial,
for the
defense
the date set
abama, supra, prospectively and that conse
Johns,
Appellant-Petitioner
in St.
visited
quently
automatically
Griswold is not
enti
Arizona,
re-
and informed him
tled to
reversal of his
conviction. We
attorneys’
in a
fees
quired additional
also hold that
in circumstances such as
him at
represent
amount to
substantial
these, where in an excess of caution after
of civil actions
Because
trial.
appeal,
inquire
we choose to
into the
time, Appel-
had
at that
been initiated
we will
reverse if the
reasonably certain
lant-Petitioner was
upon
facts
which the
rests can be de
ability
ac-
that he did not have
favorably
termined
ap
at an
state
satisfy
necessary
quire
the funds
propriate hearing.
requests of defense counsel.
time,
informed
evidence at the
“At this same
coram
'
had of-
Judge
sustains
defense counsel that the State
the conclusion of
Murry
plead guilty to
fully
him to
Griswold
understоod his
fered to allow
n .crimeof
apparent
This
It
comparison
murder.
from the
time, but
petition
discussed at the
the averments in
possibility was
Griswold’s
During
testimony
the re-
testimony
was reached.
no decision
falls far
day, Appellant-Petitioner
supporting
short
mainder of
averments. Gris-
and,
wold
his wife
contemplated the situation
had accumulated a com-
munity
day,
$200,000.00.
indicated that he would be
estate of in
following
excess of
(County Attorney’s
to sec-
willing
enter a
statement of facts on
conviction.)
this deci-
degree murder. He made
ond
There is no testimony what-
not because he was
soever
sions
counsel refused to defend
agreed to enter the
receipt
which he
him
trial after
crime to
check.
It
because he did nоt
is clear
request
that counsel did
an addi-
attorneys,
satisfy
money
attorneys’
tional
gave
available
fee and that he
payment
felt
under the circumstances
check
because
amount requested.
prepared
to de-
it,
The answer that “He was satisfied with
*4
* *
except
fend his
at trial
my
case
he couldn’t cash
check after I
present
by his
gave
On direct examination
it to him” has an element of uncer-
the coram
hearing
tainty,
at
Gris-
but we
it that
take
the word “ex-
cept”
wold testified:
was used in its usual sense of a con-
junction,
Otherwise,
meaning “however”.
indicated
Powell
“You have
that Mr.
Powell would not have been satisfied with
you
told
that he
additional
wanted an
arrangement
the fee
and would
in-
$5,000.00.
(cid:127)
formed Griswold that he сould not contin
right.
“A
is
That
ue in the
defense
the case.
“Q
you, after
Did
that state-
made
grounds
Griswold sets forth other
in
ment,
attempt
get
an addi-
support of
involuntary
his claim
for
$5,000.00
tional
to him ?
plea.
principally
These
relate to the denial
Yes,
“A
I did.
preliminary
certain
prior
motions
“Q.
by way
You
that
check?
ordinarily
We would
trial.
consider
way
By
“A
of check.
they
present
these matters
on
as
are
Later,
face
on
If the trial
rul-
cross-examination he
record.
court’s
testified:
ings
erroneous,
they
proper-
could and
stated,
“Q
you
I believe
also
Mr. Gris-
ly
assigned
grounds
should have been
on
wold, a
ago
few moments
one of
rea-
However,
appeal.
direct
since Griswold
you
plead guilty
sons
decided to
to sec-
on all
relies
'd circum-
accumuk
ond
your
murder lack of
coercion,
briefly
stances to establish
ex-
funds, is that correct ?
purpose
amine into them not for the
of de-
“A
is correct.
termining the correctness of
the lower
“Q
you
testify
response
Did
also
in
ruling,
court’s
the cumulative
show
request by
your
one
at-
light
effect
actual
facts as
torneys,
you
for additional fees
wrote
they
existed at the time of the
$5,-
him out a check for an additional
First,
complains:
Griswold
that
there
000?
him,
against
some seventy
witnesses
“A
it,
He was
except he
satisfied
my
none
whom
to talk
be-
he was able
gave
couldn’t cash
check
I
it to
county
jail
cause
was confined
My
up.
him.
had been tied
funds
lawyers
in-
and it was difficult
“Q
you
your
And I think
said
terview the witnesses becausе
the dis-
demanded additional funds before
on
tances involved
terrain
the Na-
trial,
proceed
with the
is that
However,
vajo
as a mini-
Reservation.
right?
mum,
county
at-
should
be noted
“A That
[Emphasis sup-
correct.”
torney filed an
list of
twen-
amended
plied]
ty-eight
days
the trial
names ten
n
because he was
case after
always
this
case. There must
knew
Griswold
why
his motion for
reasons
a defendant
argument
plead
chooses to
Further,
had been a
But this
there
does not mean that be-
continuance.
reasons,
cause there are
hearing at which some
day preliminary
choice made is
two
to be
involuntary
considered
important
legal
witnesses must have
within
of the most
Moreover,
contemplation. Every person
daily, per-
present and testified.
been
haps
momentarily,
almost
pointed
legal justifi-
required
this
out
should be
choose between
judge’s
different courses
of the trial
denial
action.
cation
nearly
very
choices are
continuance,
compel-
Some
five months
from
motion
ling
preliminary hearing
circumstances
in fact
may
intervened between
give
the end
no reasonable
for trial.
alternative.
and the date set
freely made,
if
is,
But
Second,
part
the court denied
duress,
physical
under
and with full knowl-
produce.
exam-
motion
Griswold’s
edge
consequences,
then it must be
ple
pointed
was his wife’s
Griswold
said
choice is
made.
needed to de-
shoes which
stated were
testified,
thought anything
As Griswold
“I
height.
her
deem that
termine
We
prеferable
would be
to the death penalty.”
hardly
There
requires serious comment.
ways
have been other
to establish
must
note
further
We
one
matter be
thirty-two years if
height
of his wife
fore we conclude. Powell was asked in the
necessary
element to a success-
this was
coram nobis
what he told Griswold
ful defense.
prior
to second
privileged
murder. Powell claimed a
com
Third,
thought
it was his
*5
munication and Griswold’s
in
amount of time he would have
serve
argued
attorney-client
that
privilege
Prison would
from
the Arizona State
be
pointed
could
be
It should be
not
waived.
get
years
ten
to life. Griswold did
privilege personal
out that this is a
years
he
of ten
which
minimum sentence
obviously
client
can
and
More
waived.
could,
get.
hoped
But this
over,
attorney’s representation
an
when
course,
bearing on
his
have no
client,
under attack
his
there
former
voluntary.
plea prior
sentencing was
fully
obligation
freely
and
in
an
to disclose
thought
“I
note that he also testified
We
protect
order to
the due
administration
anything
preferable to the death
would be
justice.
Kruchten, 101
State v.
Ariz.
penalty.”
At defendant on sel that: all charge, lesser Judge Shelley inquired “Had peti- except one questions of the court’s why tioner entering he was pertinent part directed to counsel. proceedings as follows: those *8 murder, his answer would have been the difficulty de- having the in “THE The Motion COURT: talking witnesses, plea not their fact that fense to withdraw fense counsel plea able and enter a to see and murder, part evidence, charge of evaluate the fact reduced second
9
Alford,
guilty.
been found
State v.
denied, that the
98
was
that the continuance
249,
806;
403 P.2d
State v. Ander
Apache County, the
Ariz.
to occur
trial was
son,
123,
784;
96
392 P.2d
compensate
Ariz.
with which
funds
lack of
68,
Fry,
P.2d
and State
95 Ariz.
386
availability
death
v.
counsel,
Thus,
plea is made the
794.
once the
penalty.”
court has
to determine
whether
testimony
defend-
The uncontradicted
plea
voluntary.
is
Benton v. United
supports
ant at the coram nobis
States,
Cir.,
It is
9th
352 F.2d
well
an-
that he would have so
this contention
any plea
understood
is
invol
presume
cannot
from
swered. We
untary is of course void.
defendant remained si-
that because
record
“The
to see that the
are careful
courts
asked
questions
being
lent
when
plea
voluntarily,
of guilty made
is
an-
attorney
not have
proper
explanation by
advice and
the coram nobis hear-
swered
at
as
understanding
court
full
of its
with a
Coсhran,
Carnley
ing.
the case of
v.
In
consequences.
v. United
Kercheval
70,
884,
506,
8
82
L.Ed.2d
369
S.Ct.
U.S.
582,
States,
223,
220,
274
47 S.Ct.
U.S.
Court,
Supreme
pass-
the United States
1009;
Johnston, 312
71 L.Ed.
v.
Walker
a
ing
question of a
upon the
waiver of
275,
574,
830;
U.S.
85 L.Ed.
61 S.Ct.
defendant,
by
stated:
to counsel
States,
Cir., 349 F.2d
Scott v. United
6th
«He
jn
* *
case,
howev-
643;
641,
Buccheri,
Application
6
er,
guilty plea,
re-
no
there was
196,
ques-
Ariz.App.
P.2d 91.
431
allege
turn to the writ does
an af-
case,
tion, then,
is whether
in the instant
Therefore,
no
there is
firmative waiver.
properly
defendant
advised of his
was
disputed
question requiring
hear-
fact
a
rights by
the court and
counsel and
ing. Presuming
from a
waiver
silent
proper
a
understand-
there was
impermissible.
record is
The record
happen
ing
defendant of what
show,
allega-
or there must be an
must'
guilty plea.
as a result of his
show,
that an
and evidence which
determining
“In
must look
this we
accused was offered counsel but intelli-
”
* * *
[Emphasis
record.
added.]
understandingly
gently
rejected
Jennings, the Unit-
Since our decision in
Anything less is not
offer.
waiver.”
Court, McCarthy
ed States
v.
plea of
459,
1166,
States,
89 S.Ct.
United
first-degree
guilty”
from “not
418, interpreted
22 L.Ed.2d
Rule
as
“guilty of
murder”
done
amended,
Rules
Crim.
the. Federal
generally
“plea
termed
under what
is
as
procedure to be
Proc. which
involves
bargaining.”
v.
104
Jennings,
In State
prior
followed
a federal district court
recognized
Ariz.
P.2d
we
448
plea
accepting
guilty.
a
danger
a defendant
Jennings, practically the same re
In
however,
“plea bargaining”;
approved
we
quirements
forth
determination
are set
proper
bargaining
where
determinа-
voluntariness of
tion is made
bargaining as is set
there
where
is
at the time the
11, as amend
under
Rule
forth
the Federal
changed. We stated:
a line
holding
followed
ed.
so
bargaining’
e.g., Fultz
United
‘plea
recognized,
federal
v.
“While
cases. See
States,
(6th Cir.); United
guilty plea procured
‘fraud
365
404
or duress’
F.2d
;
(6th
setting
Cir.)
ground
judgment
Diggs,
aside
v.
who
guilty understands the nature
noncompliance deprives the defendant of
charge against
of the
him and whether
procedural
safeguards,
Rule’s
which
consequences
he is aware of the
designed
are
to facilitate a more accu-
**
*
plea.
rate determination of the voluntariness
******
plea.
holding
Our
that a defend-
ant
whose
accepted
has been
in vio-
purposes
genesis
“These two
have their
lation of Rule 11 should be afforded the
plea.
in the
nature
A de-
opportunity,
plead
anew not
will
fendant who enters such a
simulta-
every
insure that
accused is afforded
neously waives
several
constitutional
procedural
those
safeguards, but alsо
rights,
including
privilege against
help
will
great
reduce the
judi-
waste of
compulsory self-incrimination,
right
cial
required
process
resources
the friv-
by jury,
right
to trial
and his
to confront
guilty plea
olous attacks on
convictions
his accusers.
this
be
For
waiver to
valid
encouraged,
are
and are more diffi-
Clause,
under the Due Process
it must be
dispose of,
cult
original
when the
‘an
relinquishment
intentional
or aban-
inadequate.
is,
record is
therefore,
It
privilege.’
donment of a known
or
require that,
too much to
before sen-
Zerbst,
Johnson
tencing
years
imprison-
defendants to
S.Ct.
Con-
(1938).
82 L.Ed.
ment,
judges
district
take the few min-
sequently,
guilty plea
if a defendant’s
necessary
utes
to inform them
their
equally voluntary
knowing,
rights and to determine
un-
has been
in violation of
оbtained
due
derstand the
taking.”
action
process and is therefore void. More-
over,
McCarthy
guilty plea
applied only
ju-
because a
is an admis-
to the federal
system
dicial
of all
of a
under Federal
But,
sion
elements
formal
Rule 11.
Boykin Alabama,
charge,
truly
criminal
it cannot
recent case of
volun-
tary
possesses
U.S.
unless the defendant
an
S.Ct.
11 can- 1065, L.Ed.2d 923. We 13 85 S.Ct. Ker- punishment. See determine and im- these three 220, waiver presume a States, U.S. 274 cheval v. United silent rights from a portant federal 582, Admis L.Ed. 1009. 223, 71 47 S.Ct. record. be based on must sibility of a confession on the volun determination a ‘reliable facing an accused is at stake for “What the consti satisfies issue which
tariness
utmost
imprisonment
death
demands
or
defendant.’
rights
tutional
capable
Jack
solicitude which courts
387,
Denno,
368,
84 S.Ct.
378 U.S.
son
canvassing
v.
the matter
the accused
requirement
1774,
908.
12 L.Ed.2d
understanding
he has a full
to make sure
the record
spread
prosecution
and of its con-
connotes
of what
no
waiver is
of a valid
prerequisites
discharges
sequence.
When
Carnley v.
In
innovation.
constitutional
function,
ade-
he leaves a record
884,
516,
506,
Cochran,
82 S.Ct.
369 U.S.
may
quate
any
later
review
be
problem of
70,
dealt with
8 L.Ed.2d
Louisiana,
sought.
(Garner v.
368 U.S.
counsel, a
right to
Sixth
207;
waiver
157, 173,
248,
L.Ed.2d
7
82 S.Ct.
‘Presum
held:
right. We
Amendment
Patterson,
605, 610,
Specht v.
imper
record is
from a silent
ing waiver
1209,
fore-
L.Ed.2d
326),
87 S.Ct.
18
show, or
must
The record
missible.
spin-off
proceed-
of collateral
stalls the
allegation and evidence
must be an
there
murky
ings
probe
memories.
that seek
show,
was offered
that an accused
which
dissenting
in the Al-
justices
“The three
intelligently and understand
counsel
the law ac-
abama
Court stated
Anything less
rejected
offer.
ingly
curately
that there
when
concluded
is not waiver.’
the record
was reversible error ‘because
does nоt
defendant vol-
disclose
must
that the same standard
think
“We
untarily
understandingly
entered his
determining
applied
be
663,
pleas
guilty.’
281 Ala.
For,
voluntarily
as
guilty plea
made.
is
207 So.2d
at 415.
said,
guilty more
plea of
is
we have
conduct;
it
ais
than an admission
Reversed.”
incomprehension,
Ignorance,
conviction.
opinion
Boykin
I am the
sets to
terror,
inducements,
or
coercion,
subtle
any lingering
rest
doubts that the convic-
might
perfect cover
be a
blatant threats
in the instant
tion
case must be reversed
question
unconstitutionality. The
up of
record,
and remanded
since
even
con
a federal
of an effective waiver
supplemented by the coram
hearing,
proceeding is
right
in a
stitutional
is silent as to the defendant’s waiver
standards.
governed
federal
course
federal
therein mentioned.
415, 422,
Alabama,
Douglas
380
v.
U.S.
1074, 13
Jennings, McCarthy,
Boykin,
934.
In
85
L.Ed.2d
is
S.Ct.
court,
mandatory that the
in addition to its
rights are
constitutional
federal
“Several
counsel,
discussion with
inquiry
address its
place
takes
in a waiver
involved
personally.
Jennings
in a
entered
is
when
safeguards necessary
case set forth
be
privi
trial. First
criminal
state
protection
followed for the
of a defend-
compulsory
against
self-incrimina
lege
rights.
States,
ant’s
v. United
Julian
Fifth Amend
guaranteed
supra,
preceded McCarthy
and Jen-
by rea
applicable
ment and
nings, the
inquiry
court indicated that the
Malloy
Ho
v.
Fourteenth.
son
does
have to follow
ritual in order
L.Ed.
gan,
U.S.
84 S.Ct.
plea:
insure
voluntariness of a
trial
right
2d 653. Second
“ * * *
Louisiana,
U.S.
A
of guilty,
Duncan v.
jury.
unlikе a
1444, 20 L.Ed.2d
mere admission
extrajudicial
or
confes-
S.Ct.
sion,
one’s ac
every
confront
admits
Third,
charged
material fact
is the
Texas, 380
accepted
U.S.
should not
cusers. Pointer v.
the court
457;
ad
2d
proper
Alaway
States,
unless
United
280 F.
Supp. 326
(C.D.Cal.).
with full understánd
vice
He also stated that
grounds
one
ing
consequences.
was that
Johnson
*11
775, 777,
Ky.
Commonwealth,
demanding
72 S. were
money,
254
more
and his
the
up.
to
with
comply
funds were tied
In
W.2d
order
The
statement of the
county attorney,
not
need
follow
rule the District Court
referred
majori-
to
the
ty
prerequisite
opinion,
The
any particular
ritual.
that defendant and his wife had
the
understands
the defendant
accumulated an estate
is
$200,000
excess of
immaterial,
the
United
is
since the record is clear that
Cir.,
A
F.2d 875.
the
Swаggerty,
gave
218
check
to his counsel was not
re
the defendant
with
honored
brief discussion
because all his funds
up.
were tied
may
charges
For
garding the nature
the
this reason he was unable
comply
to
direct
normally
simplest and most
the
with their request.
be
It
not explained
to
his
ascertaining the
state
him that
means
if he did not have sufficient
Davis,
knowledge.
States v.
funds to employ
United
an attorney it would be the
* * *”
Cir.,
duty of
particular Therefore, opinion jus- am of the I mo- partial denial of the “6. permit tice would better served to produce of the reasons was one defendant to withdraw to enter a agreed Mr. GRISWOLD guilty to the murder.
“13. [******] That one of the reasons agreed to enter
GRISWOLD *12 degree murder was the guilty to second P.2d 343 for continuance. denial of his motion “16. [******] denied in venue and motion before part and the motion the motion for continu- produce Robert Francis STATE of No. 1832. Arizona, Appellee, URBANO, Appellant. denied, GRISWOLD ance were Arizona. Court pleading possibility consider In Banc. charge.” reduced to a July 23, 1969. distinctly that I am not to state I want rulings
questioning the correctness arraignment. There
on the matters this Court
are insufficient facts before
pass upon them. Boykin majority states only,
prospective and that the issues were proceedings.
determined the coram nobis only,
Assuming Boykin it is prospective question of the volun-
not decisive plea. indicates
tariness of the record plainly advised
that had the defendant been that, by rights and been made aware action, waiving Constitu- he was vital according defendant’s privileges,
tional answers,
present have he would refused requires
enter the Justice he was not so advised since
time of the he should now have
opportunity jury his case to the
if he so desires.
I am convinced that the record as it ex- prior hearing
isted the coram nobis required granting equally nothing
trial. I am convinced developed on the coram justify
which would a conclusion that