Taylor v. Page

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

Taylor v. Page

1967 OK CR 225, 435 P.2d 180, 1967 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 470

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

DecidedDecember 13, 1967

DocketNo. A-14440

StatusPublished

This text of 1967 OK CR 225 (Taylor v. Page) 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

Taylor v. Page, 1967 OK CR 225, 435 P.2d 180, 1967 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 470 (Okla. Ct. App. 1967).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM OPINION

BUSSEY, Judge.

This is an original proceeding in which the petitioner seeks his release from confinement from the State Penitentiary at •McAlester where he is currently confined under a judgment and sentence rendered against him in the District Court of Adair County, Oklahoma, Case No. 2119, wherein petitioner entered a plea of guilty to the offense of Forgery in the Second Degree and was by the court sentenced to serve a term of three years imprisonment in the State Penitentiary.

Petitioner alleges that he was never advised of his constitutional right to be represented by a court-appointed attorney, although he frequently requested the appointment of the same. The records of the Adair County Clerk reflect that upon being arraigned in the District Court before the Honorable E. G. Carroll, defendant was advised of his constitutional rights and to his right to court-appointed counsel if he so desired, and that after having been so advised, defendant waived his rights and was by the court sentenced on said plea of guilty.

We observe that petitioner’s verified allegations are in direct conflict with the records of the District Court of Adair County and the Attorney General is hereby directed to conduct an investigation to de[181]*181termine if a basis exists for the filing of perjury charges against petitioner.

It appearing to the court that the petitioner, after having been advised of his ■constitutional right to be represented by ■court-appointed counsel, knowingly and intelligently waived this right and freely .and voluntarily entered a plea of guilty with ■full knowledge of the consequences of said ■plea, we are of the opinion that the relief ■prayed for should be, and the same is hereby denied. Writ denied.

NIX, P. J. and BRETT, J., concur.

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

MEMORANDUM OPINION

BUSSEY, Judge.

This is an original proceeding in which the petitioner seeks his release from confinement from the State Penitentiary at •McAlester where he is currently confined under a judgment and sentence rendered against him in the District Court of Adair County, Oklahoma, Case No. 2119, wherein petitioner entered a plea of guilty to the offense of Forgery in the Second Degree and was by the court sentenced to serve a term of three years imprisonment in the State Penitentiary.

Petitioner alleges that he was never advised of his constitutional right to be represented by a court-appointed attorney, although he frequently requested the appointment of the same. The records of the Adair County Clerk reflect that upon being arraigned in the District Court before the Honorable E. G. Carroll, defendant was advised of his constitutional rights and to his right to court-appointed counsel if he so desired, and that after having been so advised, defendant waived his rights and was by the court sentenced on said plea of guilty.

We observe that petitioner’s verified allegations are in direct conflict with the records of the District Court of Adair County and the Attorney General is hereby directed to conduct an investigation to de[181]*181termine if a basis exists for the filing of perjury charges against petitioner.

It appearing to the court that the petitioner, after having been advised of his ■constitutional right to be represented by ■court-appointed counsel, knowingly and intelligently waived this right and freely .and voluntarily entered a plea of guilty with ■full knowledge of the consequences of said ■plea, we are of the opinion that the relief ■prayed for should be, and the same is hereby denied. Writ denied.

NIX, P. J. and BRETT, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1967 OK CR 225, 435 P.2d 180, 1967 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 470, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/taylor-v-page-oklacrimapp-1967.