OCR Text |
Show TNI Truer Words Were Never Spoken looks like a lot of portable dictating machines look these days. End of resemblance. Our BM-1- 1 The difference is in what it hears. And what you hear from it. Because it's not just hifi, it's a hifi business machine. That you can get only at a guy a Sony business machine dealer who knows a businessman's needs. And that's the truth. to Miller and Viele, Nat Title $19,600.00 778 667 cial FraxLer etux, East 2980 South to CommerKevin Title 790 R Credit Plan, Security $13,180.32 R.M, Smith etux, 210$ East Rolling Knolls to Lean as & Nettleton, Western States Title $27,100.00 798 D.G. Ford Sr. etux, 3090 West 2920 South to Lockhart Co. Western States Title Gary McGhie Land 8 31 '"Stay keeps people hi tench." LES OLSON COMPANY Jack 871 Harold W Nelson etux, 3861 So. $200 West, Hunter 9ll to D Prud Fed Savings $27,000.00 S McDonald etiu East 12100 South, Draper Western Sav: $22000.00: 1765 to $i5,5bo.oo South 2200 West, West Jordan Commercial Sec Bank $25200.00 to 902 R&D Engineers, 7650 W at, West Jordan Commercial Sec Bank R.M. Twigg 1915 South .3655 West W Kuehn etux, 12200 T to Lashley etux, McGhie $22,500.00 etux to Valley 813 Dale S Belka etux, 3519 South 5200 West to Valley Bank $3993.12 Magna to Western Redondo Ave. to Prud Fed Sec Title $17,650.00 926 Antonio P Minardi etux, 1501 East 5975 South to Prud Federal Sav, Sec Title 051 Sav Savings $16,000.00 929 Porter Bros Realty, P.O. to State Savings $27,700.00 D Ehlers etux, 1700 $12,800.00 Ridges etux, l38l So. 2l90 East to Zions Bank no amt given Reliable Postal R A Air Freight Inc. 320 992 South 3rd East to Utah Bank Trust $75000.00 022 023 G.M. 9 G H etux, M B & 3697 States $10,000.00 Sergakis etux, 576 E. 037 Elton L Kettle etux, 1507 West 1890 South, Murray to Walker Bank $708l.8O Wesley V to Salt Lake Credit Union, Abst $5213.95 Lincoln Street, Mldvale to Peterson etux Brockbank Empl. 055 Stan Schmiett etux, 87 3rd South to Continental Bank $6190.56 039 Box 21205 John Sunnydale Lane $37,000.00 862 R E Breinhold etux, 5022 Kiowa Court to First Fed 050 L.K. Rowland etux, 5556 South 575 East, Murray to Bruce E Lind etux, Reliable Abst. $25,000.00 ' 9l7 Stephen J Wolowina, 172 Co. Western Jordan to Western Mortgage Land etux, 8689 Millstream Drive to Lockhart 921 J.S. Hardy etux, 3807 West Carolina Drive, West West $300 South, Murray to Utah Mtge Loan, Title $16,950.00 Bank $5o,lol.51 10565 South State to Bettilyon Mtge. Loan, Guardian Title $10,000.00 Title 09 Holman 013 Harmon City Inc. 3575 So. 1000 West to Bailey Bank $ etux, 2351 Continental Sav $19,350.00 2577-01- $20,800.00 A R Edith Drive, 983 R&D Engineers, 7650 900 2576-9- South l81j0 East, Draper Home Benefit $21,750.00 651 931 J F Moraley Sundown Ave. to Bank $23,000.00 to $18,300.00 82$ Reed etuxf, 10083 Marble, Sandy, to Walker Bank $2031. 00 Wm. South 2200 Brad W Olson etux, 566 East Aloha Lane, Sandy, to Bettilyon, 669 895,897 both Max 819 dictating machines THURSDAY, JANUARY 3, 174 Trust Deeds 772 Ronald Major etux, 185 East 7615 South, Mldvale A $1820.88 SONY IICOID DAILY Bat em an etux, 85l5 South 1700 West to Valley Bank $10,000.00 Prud Fed Sav $9900.00 058 Brent J Neil etux, 2180 Quail Run Drive to Prud Fed' Sav $23,250.00 ' Larry E Shires etux, 127 South 8th East to State Savings $23,700.00 O67 09lN.R. Clawson West 5295 South etux, 1505 , Reams to & Nettleton, Western States Title $16,600.00 Lomaa M.R. Koch a etux, 6519 Sumac Way to Utah Mtge Loan 098 Guardian Title $3l,300.00 etux, 2218 to Western Circle Wilmington 103 W M Howery Savings $27,800.00 112 J.M. Patrick etux, 3653 West Alohera, West Jordan to Tracy Mtge, Tracy Collins Bank $21,000.00 2134 Richards St. Salt Lake City, Utah 84115 Phona 489357 In The Supreme Court Of The State Of Utah rVilJiam Pope, L. M. Cumminga, Clerk No. 13390 Plaintiff and Respondent, FILED December 18, 1973 V. John W. Turner, Warden, Utah State Prison, Defendant and Appellant. district attorney should have been held in contempt or otherwise dealt with for failing to file an Information within 30 days was not a matter to concern Mr. Pope. Ordinarily one would think a defendant would be glad to have the district attorney dism..?s any charge pending against him or to refuse to prosecute so that he might claim some defense by reason of a lack of a speedy trial. the written motion together with the oral statements made to the judge were in substantial compliance with the statute, and especially is this true si:.. . ".I.e. given to the trial judge was sufficient to convince him that the charge of voluntary manslaughter should not be pursued. We think ELLETT, Justice: The defendant appeals from the granting of petitioner's writ of habeas . corpus by the trial judge. ' In 1964 Mr. Pope and a woman companion were jointly charged with the crime of murder in the first degree. At the preliminary hearing Mr. Pope, through his attorney, and the county attorney entered into some sort of projected plea bargaining whereby the complaint was to be dismissed as to the lady defendant and Mr. Pope was to waive the preliminary hearing and plead guilty in the District Court to the included offense of voluntary manslaughter if the committing magistrate would only bind him over on that charge. The magistrate cooperated and did bind him over as per the agree- ment. The trouble with the matter was that it was the district attorney whose duty it was to draw the Information and to participate in any plea bargaining which was to be done. Our statute1 makes it the duty of the district attorney to file an Information within 30 days after the defendant is bound over for trial on an offense under the penalty of prosecution for neglect of duty and of contempt of court if he fails to do so. The next section2 provides that if the district attorney is of the opinion that an Information should not be filed, he should make, subscribe, and file with the court a statement in writing setting forth his reasons of fact and law for not doing so. The court examines the statement and the evidence and then either directs the prosecutor to proceed with the case or to discharge the accused. No notice of the motion or of the refusal to file the Information was given to Mr. Pope, but since the dismissal of a criminal charge does not prejudice a defendant, we do not regard this procedure under the circumstances of this case as being prejudicial. Mr. Pope now contends that the first bindover is still in full force and effect and that a second charge of murder in the first degree could not be laid under the same factual situation. ' The answer to such a contention, assuming that the first case is still viable in the District court, is to be found in the fact that Mr. Pope never raised the matter of a prior action pending when he was confronted with the second case. A defendant could be charged in more than one Information, and if he raised no complaint so as to permit the matter to be adjusted, the first case tried would afford the defense of once in jeopardy in case the State should attempt to try him under the other Information. It would not matter which Information was first filed or first prosecuted, as jeopardy would not attach before the trial was had under either Information. In addition to the foregoing, there is another reason why Mr. Pope cannot prevail in this matter. He made no complaint at his arraignment to the manner in which the preliminary hearing for murder in the first degree had been handled in causing him to be bound over for trial. If he had any objections to the manner in which the preliminary hearing was conducted, he waived them by pleading to the Information and going to trial. A defendant cannot abide, the result of a trial and if dissatisfied with the verdict compel the State tq begin afresh on a mere technicality which has nothing to do with the fairness of the trial or with his In the instant matter the district attorney was convinced that a case of murder in the first degree could be made out, and so he did not desire to draw an Information for voluntary manslaughter. He signed a motion which he filed in the District Court requesting that the case be remanded with directions that a new charge of murder in the first degree be filed and a preliminary hearing guilt or innocence. 4 had thereon. The judge granted this motion, and a new case was begun, a 3. The author of this opinion expressed himself regarding Federal interference preliminary hearing was held, and Mr. Pope was bound over for trial on a of in the murder An in first degree. State affairs in a similar case some time ago. See Dyett v. Turner, 20 Utah Information was filed charging him charge with that crime. At arraignment in the District Court Mr. Pope entered a 2d 403, 439 P. 2d 266 (1968). plea of not guilty and proceeded to trial, where he was found guilty of the charg 4. State v. Spencer, 15 Utah 149 at 156; State v. Norman, 16 Utah 457 at 471 contained in the Information. and 472; State v. Gustaldi, 41 Utah 63 at 70, 123 P. 897 (1912); State v. Freeman, 93 Utah 125 at 135, 71 P. 2d 196 (1937); People v. Sierra, 256 P. 2d He filed a petition in the Federal District Court 577 at 579 (Cal.App. 1953); 22 C.J.S. , Criminal Law, Sees. 365 and 366. seeking his release on a writ of habeas corpus. The writ was denied based on oral statements and Mr, Pope had a fair trial and is not entitled to escape paying his debt arguments. He appealed to the Circuit Court, which reversed and remanded u wociety by any such ruse as he now attempts to raise. The ruling of the the matter for a full evidentiary hearing. The Federal District Court then i.il court in reversed and the matter remanded with directions to dismiss released the petitioner on a writ of habeas corpus, and the State appealed. :r ut, on and 10 remand the petitioner to the custody of the warden. Again the Circuit Court reversed, holding that Mr. Pope must file his petition in the Slate Court and exhaust his remedies before proceeding in the Federal WK CONCUR: Court. However, permission was given Mr. Pope to renew his petition in the Federal Court after the Utah Supreme Court had made its determination of the ' 1. Sec. E. R. Callister, Jr., Chief Justice U.C.A. 1953. 2. Sec. U.C.A. 1953. matter. In other words, we are given the satisfaction of knowing that that which we do in this matter is of no consequence whatsoever and that the ruling of the Supreme Court of a sovereign state of the Union is subject to the whim of the F. Henri Henriod, Justice inferior district courts in the Federal system. 3 The trial judge apparently was impressed with the might of the Federal system and improperly released the prisoner. The basis of the release was that the District Court had no power to remand the first case on a written motion. J. Allan Crockett, Justice 77-17- 77-17-- -1, 2, , We are unable to follow the reasoning given for the order. Even if the manslaughter bindover remained in the District Court, Mr. Pope would not have been prejudiced, since he was never prosecuted under that charge. Whether the R. L. Tuckett, Justice |