LAW.coLAW.co

State of Kansas, Appellee, v. Claude George Atkins, Appellant

Kansas Supreme Court1965-07-10No. No. 44,022
195 Kan. 182403 P.2d 962

Summary

Holding. The Kansas Supreme Court affirmed the conviction and sentence, holding that an indigent defendant does not have a constitutional right to appointed counsel at a preliminary examination.

Claude Atkins was charged with burglary in the second degree and grand larceny. At his preliminary examination in county court, he was indigent and unrepresented by counsel. Although he had been advised of his right to counsel and stated he lacked funds to hire one, he waived his right to a preliminary examination. The state then presented testimony from the sheriff, and Atkins was bound over for trial. Later, when Atkins appeared in district court, counsel was appointed to represent him. He and his attorney conferred and then waived formal arraignment, with Atkins entering guilty pleas to both charges. He was sentenced to concurrent terms in the penitentiary and appealed, claiming his lack of counsel at the preliminary examination violated the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments.

Atkins' sole argument on appeal was that as an indigent defendant, he had a constitutional right to appointed counsel at his preliminary examination. Kansas courts had consistently rejected this claim in prior cases. The court found nothing in Atkins' circumstances that would distinguish his case from the established precedent holding that indigent defendants do not have a constitutional entitlement to appointed counsel at preliminary examinations.

Summary generated by law.co from the public-domain opinion. The opinion text itself is public domain.

Key issues

  • Right to counsel for indigent defendants at preliminary examinations
  • Sixth Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment applicability to preliminary hearings
  • Effect of waiver of preliminary examination and right to counsel

Procedural posture

Atkins appealed his conviction and sentence following guilty pleas entered after he had appeared without counsel at his preliminary examination in county court.

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion

majority opinion

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Robb, J.:

Defendant, upon his own plea of guilty, was convicted of the offenses of burglary in the second degree and grand larceny. He was sentenced to confinement in the penitentiary.

He has appealed, and the only question presented concerns the fact he was not represented by counsel at his preliminary examination.

The record shows the following:

On November 14, 1963, in the county court of Wallace county a complaint was filed charging defendant in two counts—burglary in the second degree and grand larceny. On November 14 he was brought before the court. The state requested that his preliminary examination be continued. He agreed to it. On December 2 defendant was again brought before the court and was advised of his rights to employ counsel and to a sufficient opportunity in which to prepare his defense. He advised the court he was without money to employ counsel and stated that he waived his rights to a preliminary examination and agreed that he be bound over for trial on the charges against him. Notwithstanding his waiver of a preliminary examination the state, with the consent of the court, introduced the oral testimony of the sheriff which, we are told—and it is not disputed, consisted only of testimony concerning his investigation of the burglary and larceny and did not include any reference to any statements made by defendant during the course of the investigation. Defendant declined to cross-examine the witness. At the conclusion of the hearing defendant was bound over to the district court for trial.

On December 16, defendant was brought before the district court. Being an indigent person and without counsel, the court appointed James E. Taylor, an experienced and capable member of the local bar, to represent him. Mr. Taylor and defendant were given the time and opportunity to confer privately—which they did. Later, on the same day, counsel and defendant informed the court they were ready for further proceedings—whereupon they waived formal arraignment and defendant entered a plea of guilty to each of the charges. No reason being given why sentence should not be pronounced, defendant was sentenced to confinement in the penitentiary, the sentences to run concurrently.

On June 9, 1964, defendant mailed a “Notice of Appeal” to the district judge. This document was ordered filed and was, under the circumstances, considered as a valid notice of appeal by all parties. . Present counsel was appointed to represent defendant in his appeal, and he has filed an abstract and brief and appeared on oral argument of the appeal.

The sole specification of error is:

“Defendant was indigent and not represented by counsel at his preliminary hearing in the County Court of Wallace County, Kansas in violation of the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution as made obligatory upon the States by the Fourteenth Amendment.”

and so the only question is whether an indigent defendant has a constitutional right to have counsel appointed to represent him at a preliminary examination.

The question has been before this court many times—particularly within the past year or two—and it uniformly has been answered in the negative. There is nothing about the facts of this case to bring it outside the general rule. No useful purpose would result from discussing the matter further. It has been dealt with in many cases. See State v. Daegele, 193 Kan. 314, 393 P. 2d 978 (cert. den. 379 U. S. 981, 13 L. Ed. 2d 571, 85 S. Ct. 686), Tarr v. State, 194 Kan. 798, 402 P. 2d 309, Portis v. State, 195 Kan. 313, 403 P. 2d 959, and the many cases cited in those opinions.

The judgment is affirmed.