From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Crider v. Maxwell

Supreme Court of Ohio
Feb 6, 1963
174 Ohio St. 190 (Ohio 1963)

Opinion

No. 37827

Decided February 6, 1963.

Habeas corpus — Refusal to allow change of plea — Abuse of discretion not shown — Preliminary hearing — Purpose of — Right to — Waiver — Jury trial — Speedy trial — Constitutional rights not violated.

IN HABEAS CORPUS.

This is an action in habeas corpus originating in this court. Petitioner, Willy S. Crider, was indicted by the Grand Jury of Cuyahoga County on February 28, 1961, for the crime of armed robbery. On March 1, 1961, the grand jury returned two other indictments charging petitioner in one with a single count of armed robbery and in the second with two counts of armed robbery. Petitioner, shortly after his arrest, retained counsel who represented him at each step of the proceedings. On March 2 and 3, 1961, petitioner was arraigned on the various indictments and pleaded not guilty. On May 24th and 25th, he appeared in open court with his attorney, withdrew his pleas of not guilty and entered pleas of guilty as charged. He was thereupon referred to the probation department. On July 12, 1961, petitioner again appeared in open court with his attorney and made a motion to withdraw his pleas of guilty and again enter pleas of not guilty. At the same time, he requested a jury trial. The court, after an extensive hearing during which the probation officer and two police officers testified that petitioner, after he had entered his pleas of guilty, told them that he was guilty of the crimes with which he was charged, overruled petitioner's motion and sentenced him to the Ohio Penitentiary. The petitioner's counsel was afforded full opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses at this hearing.

Mr. Willy S. Crider, in propria persona. Mr. Mark McElroy, attorney general, and Mr. John J. Connors, Jr., for respondent.


The basic issue in this case is whether the trial court, by refusing to allow petitioner to withdraw his guilty pleas, so deprived him of his rights as to constitute grounds for release by habeas corpus.

As to change of plea, Section 2943.03, Revised Code, provides in part as follows:

"The court may, for good cause shown, allow a change of plea at any time before the commencement of the trial."

The question raised by this section is whether the trial court abused its discretion. In the present case, petitioner was represented by counsel of his own choosing throughout the proceedings. This is not a case where an accused is rushed into a plea without counsel. Petitioner in the first instance pleaded not guilty, then some weeks later changed his pleas to guilty and subsequently attempted to again change his pleas to not guilty. The court on this motion gave petitioner a complete hearing, the testimony covering some 50 pages of a transcript. From this hearing, the court determined that no promises or inducements were offered petitioner to change his pleas to guilty, and the transcript shows that, after such change, petitioner admitted his guilt to three different court officers.

The allowance of a change of plea is within the sound discretion of the trial court, and, although such discretion should be liberally exercised in favor of the accused, it does not appear in the present situation that there was any abuse of discretion by the trial court. 4 Wharton's Criminal Law and Procedure, 777, Section 1908.

The petitioner urges that he was deprived of his constitutional rights by not having a preliminary hearing. It is his contention that failure to afford a preliminary hearing deprives an accused of being able to confront the state's witnesses and lay evidence before the court as to the degree of accused's guilt and deprives him of other constitutional rights. Such is not the purpose of the preliminary hearing. It is only to determine whether sufficient evidence exists to warrant binding an accused over to the grand jury to determine whether formal charges shall be placed against him. No rights or defenses are lost from a failure to have a preliminary hearing. In this respect, petitioner has been deprived of no constitutional right. Once an indictment has been returned, a plea to such indictment waives any right the accused has to a preliminary hearing. Annotation, 116 A.L.R., 550; 4 Wharton's Criminal Law and Procedure, 290, Section 1619.

Petitioner's next contentions relate to his having been deprived of a jury trial and confrontation of witnesses. These are both matters which are incident to a trial, and petitioner by his plea of guilty waived all such rights. Craig v. State, 49 Ohio St. 415; Norton v. Green, Supt., 173 Ohio St. 531; and Doughty v. Sacks, Warden, 173 Ohio St. 407.

In the course of his hearing, petitioner raised the question that he was deprived of a speedy trial. Although the right to a speedy trial is provided by the Constitution for all persons accused of crimes, such right must be urged, and the failure to so urge it will constitute a waiver thereof. State v. Cunningham, 171 Ohio St. 54. According to the petitioner's own statement he was represented by counsel shortly after his arrest. If he or his attorney felt that trial was being unduly delayed, remedies were available to secure this right. There is no evidence that any such steps were taken.

Petitioner has shown no deprivation of any of his constitutional rights nor any lack of jurisdiction of the trial court.

Petitioner remanded to custody.

TAFT, C.J., ZIMMERMAN, MATTHIAS, O'NEILL, GRIFFITH, HERBERT and GIBSON, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Crider v. Maxwell

Supreme Court of Ohio
Feb 6, 1963
174 Ohio St. 190 (Ohio 1963)
Case details for

Crider v. Maxwell

Case Details

Full title:CRIDER v. MAXWELL, WARDEN

Court:Supreme Court of Ohio

Date published: Feb 6, 1963

Citations

174 Ohio St. 190 (Ohio 1963)
187 N.E.2d 875

Citing Cases

State v. Wigglesworth

1. The only purpose of a preliminary hearing is to determine whether sufficient facts exist to warrant the…

State v. Minamyer

1. The only purpose of a preliminary hearing is to determine whether sufficient facts exist to warrant the…