KNAUF v. KOLOSKI, SUPT., 4 Ohio St.2d 86 (1965)

212 N.E.2d 603

KNAUF, APPELLEE v. KOLOSKI, SUPT., OHIO STATE REFORMATORY, APPELLANT.

No. 39597Supreme Court of Ohio.
Decided December 15, 1965.

Criminal procedure — Arraignment and plea of guilty — Immediately thereafter, constitutional and statutory rights explained to accused — Accused then reaffirmed plea of guilty — Court’s duty to explain accused’s rights sufficiently complied with — Habeas corpus.

APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Richland County.

This is an appeal in a habeas corpus action originating in the Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals granted petitioner his release from custody.

On October 21, 1960, the Grand Jury of Cuyahoga County returned an indictment charging appellee and two other persons with three counts of armed robbery. On October 25, 1960, appellee, a youth 17 years of age, was arraigned on the indictment and pleaded guilty thereto. The proceedings on arraignment which give rise to the present proceedings are as follows:

“The Clerk. Have each of you read the indictment and do each of you understand what you are charged with?

“* * *

“Wesley Knauf. Yes.

“* * *

“The Court. And how do you please [sic], Mr. Knauf?

“Wesley Knauf. Guilty.

“The Court. Mr. Summers and Mr. Knauf, each of you understand that if you chose, you could have demanded a jury trial and a representation by counsel? Do you understand that?

“* * *

“Wesley Knauf. Yes.

“The Court. And understanding that, each one of you pleads guilty to the charge?

Page 87

“* * *

“Wesley Knauf. Yes.”

Based on this record and the testimony of the appellee at the hearing in the habeas corpus action, the Court of Appeals found:

“In our opinion, even respondent’s `transcript on arraignment’ supports the contentions of the petitioner.

“The court asked this 17-year old boy to plead, before an without saying anything to him about his constitutional rights. Such explanation as was given him after his plea does not comport with present day high standards of due process of law. * * *”

In its opinion, the Court of Appeals, although quoting part of the proceedings upon arraignment, did not quote the part following its explanation of right to counsel, wherein the court said:

“The Court. And understanding that, each one of you pleads guilty to the charge?

“Edward Summers. Yes.

“Wesley Knauf. Yes.”

Mr. Jerome B. Goldman and Mr. Sanford S. Simms, for appellee.

Mr. William B. Saxbe, attorney general, and Mr. Leo J. Conway, for appellant.

Per Curiam.

The question raised by this appeal is whether the proceedings upon arraignment, as quoted above, were sufficient to comply with the constitutional standards in relation to explanation of the right to counsel. It is true that the trial judge first asked for and allowed appellee to plead prior to the time he explained the rights of the accused, but immediately thereafter, apparently realizing his omission, he proceeded to explain the accused’s rights and, after determining that appellee understood his rights, again asked for his plea.

It was appellee’s contention in the Court of Appeals that he did not know that he could withdraw his plea of guilty. However, as noted from the record, such withdrawal was not necessary

Page 88

as such. The court, after explaining to appellee his rights and in the light of such explanation, actually gave appellee a second chance to plead. Appellee reaffirmed his plea of guilty.

As pointed out by appellant, to hold that such proceedings constituted a violation of appellee’s rights would place the trial judge in a position that he could not correct a mistake in procedure.

It would appear that the above proceedings, wherein the trial judge after the first plea of guilty and realizing that he had committed an error of omission explained to the accused his right to trial by jury and to an attorney and gave him a second chance to plead to the indictment, constituted a compliance with the duty to explain his statutory and constitutional rights to counsel.

The judgment of the Court of Appeals is, therefore, reversed.

Judgment reversed.

TAFT, C.J., ZIMMERMAN, MATTHIAS, O’NEILL, HERBERT, SCHNEIDER and BROWN, JJ., concur.

Page 89