Talley v. State

1965 OK CR 152, 408 P.2d 346, 1965 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 239
CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma
DecidedNovember 24, 1965
DocketNo. A-13728
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 1965 OK CR 152 (Talley v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Talley v. State, 1965 OK CR 152, 408 P.2d 346, 1965 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 239 (Okla. Ct. App. 1965).

Opinion

NIX, Judge:

Plaintiff in Error, Alonzo Talley, Jr., hereinafter referred to as the defendant, plead guilty in the District Court of . Blaine County, Oklahoma, to the crime of Assault with Intent to Kill, After a Former Conviction of a Felony; and was sentenced to Seventeen ,(17) years in the penitentiary. Some nine months later, he filed a Writ of Error-Coram Nobis in Blaine County District Court. This was overruled, and from -this proceeding, he now appeals to this Court asking that the defendant be permitted to have a jury trial, or in the alternative, that this Court commute his sentence to the time he has actually served in the penitentiary and that he be discharged. Un.der the authority of Hendricks v. State, Okl.Cr., 297 P.2d 576, this Court held that .the only relief which can be granted under Coram Nobis is the setting aside of judgment and the granting of a new trial. It was further held in the Hendricks case, supra:

“The functions of a writ of error coram nobis are limited to an error of fact for which the statute provides no other remedy, which fact did not appear of record or was unknown to the court when judgment was pronounced, and which, if known, would have prevented the judgment, and which was unknown and could not have been known to the party by the exercise of reasonable diligence in time to have been otherwise , presented to the court, unless he was prevented from so presenting them by duress, fear, or other sufficient cause.”

Under the limited confines of the above, it would seem that the defendant is not properly before the Court, as the proper way to raise his contentions would have be.en by direct appeal, or by writ of habeas corpus. Since the contention raised herein attacks the validity of the judgment and sentence, we will treat this as habeas corpus, and consider said contention.

From the record before us it appears that the defendant was shot by Fred Sheppard while attempting to enter his home thru a window, with a gun. He had evidently fired at Sheppard, although these particular circumstances of the actual crime are not made clear in this record. He was wounded in the arm and hand, and was given emergency treatment at the hospital in Watonga, and later transferred to University Hospital in Oklahoma City for surgery, where he remained one night. The shooting occurred [348]*348on June 21, 1964. Information was filed on June 25 and arraignment was held that same day. Defendant was appointed counsel by the Court; and after consultation, he entered a plea of Not Guilty. Since the County Jail at Watonga was being rebuilt, the Court entered an order sending defendant to the penitentiary for medical treatment; and for the further reason that he was an escapee from the Colorado State Prison and was wanted by that state on that charge, in addition to auto theft and kidnapping; and the County Attorney did not feel the hospital was adequate for safekeeping. The penitentiary would not accept him for that purpose and he was returned to Watonga. The next day — -June 26, 1964 — defendant was again, at his request, taken before the District Court of Blaine County where he changed his plea from Not Guilty to Guilty. The following is from the casemade, at pg. 26:

“BY THE COURT: All right, gentlemen, do you have something in this case, No. 2119, State of Oklahoma v. Alonzo Talley, Jr.?
BY MR. MORGAN: Yes, sir, your Honor, and the defendant is present, together with his attorney, Mr. Tolbert.
BY THE COURT: Very well; let the record show that the defendant is present in open court, together with counsel. Now, yesterday the defendant entered a plea of not guilty, and bail was fixed. Do you have any announcement?
BY MR. TOLBERT: Do you want me to announce a plea of guilty for you?
BY THE DEFENDANT: Yes, sir.
BY MR. MORGAN: Do you want to change your plea now, from not guilty to guilty, is that correct, Alonzo?
BY THE DEFENDANT: Yes sir.
BY MR. TOLBERT: That is what he told me he wanted to do, this morning.
BY THE COURT: Very well; let the record show that the defendant withdraws his plea of “not guilty”.
Now Alonzo Talley, Jr., as I understand it, you now withdraw your plea of “not guilty”, that you entered yesterday, is that correct? •
BY THE DEFENDANT: Yes, sir.
BY THE COURT: And you now enter a plea of guilty?
BY THE DEFENDANT: Yes, sir.
BY THE COURT: To the crime of assault with intent to kill ?
BY THE DEFENDANT: Yes, sir.
BY THE COURT: Do you understand that?
BY THE DEFENDANT: Yes, sir. '
BY THE COURT: All right, you have now entered your plea of guilty, to the crime of assault with intent to kill, the Court finds that you, Alonzo Talley, Jr., are guilty as charged.
Now under the law I cannot sentence you for a period of forty-eight hours from this time, unless that time is waived and you request that sentence be imposed upon you at this time. Do you wish to waive that time, the forty-eight hours ?
BY MR. TOLBERT: What the Court means there, is, if you want to be sentenced now, so that the Sheriff can go ahead and take you down to Mc-Alester, you will have to waive that time, and if you don’t want to waive the time you will have, — they will have to take you over here and hold you in jail until the Judge can come back.
BY THE DEFENDANT: O, well I want to waive.
BY MR. TOLBERT: You want to go ahead and waive that time, — as I understood you this morning, — you want to go ahead and be sentenced now, is that right ?
BY THE DEFENDANT: Yes, sir, that is right.
BY MR. TOLBERT: And you wish to make a statement to the Court that you wish to waive this time, and that [349]*349you ask the Court to pronounce sentence on you at this time?
BY THE DEFENDANT: Yes, sir, at this time.
BY THE COURT: Now you have consulted with your attorney; what have you decided, do you waive the time ?
BY THE DEFENDANT: Yes, sir.
BY THE COURT: Very well, and time having- been waived for the fixing of a formal sentence date, is there any legal reason that the defendant has to offer why sentence should not be imposed upon him at this time?
BY MR. TOLBERT: None whatsoever that I know of, if the Court please.
BY THE COURT: Now Alonzo Talley, Jr., you heard the Information read to you yesterday, by the County Attorney, did you not?
BY THE DEFENDANT: Yes, sir.
BY THE COURT: And the County Attorney furnished you a copy of the Information?
BY THE DEFENDANT: Yes, sir.
BY THE COURT: And you have a copy of that Information?
BY THE DEFENDANT: Yes, sir.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Young v. State
1969 OK CR 104 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma, 1969)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
1965 OK CR 152, 408 P.2d 346, 1965 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 239, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/talley-v-state-oklacrimapp-1965.