Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

488 P.2d 606

Dunn v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

Decided September 2, 1971

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · decided 1971-09-02

Cited by 4 later decisions — most recently November 1996

4 state decisions

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“We have consistently held that where an appeal is taken by an accused from a judgment entered upon a plea of guilty, the appeal will ordinarily present only such questions as go to the free and voluntary character of the plea, or that accused was not of competent intelligence, or was not advised of his legal rights and the nature and consequences of his plea, or as to the sufficiency of the indictment or information to confer jurisdiction, or the legality of the sentence.”

quoted by 2 later decisions, including Collins v. State, Lozoya v. State

“"[T]he defendant entered the pleas of guilty in the trial court, while represented by counsel of his own choice, because he was guilty and that such pleas were not entered as a result of any promise, threats or coercion. Under such circumstances it appears that the trial court had jurisdiction of the person, subject matter and authority under law to pronounce the judgments and sentences imposed, and that the defendant, by freely and voluntarily entering his pleas of guilty, while represented by counsel, with full knowledge of the nature and consequence of such pleas, waived any objection to any irregularities occurring prior to the entry of such pleas." [Emphasis added]”

quoted by 1 later decision, including Collins v. State

Relies on Smith v. State

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1971-09-02

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

BUSSEY, Presiding Judge.

¶1 Jim Lee Dunn, hereinafter referred to as defendant, entered a plea of guilty in the District Court of Oklahoma County to the offense for Burglary in the Second Degree; his punishment was fixed at three years imprisonment, and from said judgment and sentence, a timely appeal has been perfected to this Court.

¶2 We have consistently held that where an appeal is taken by an accused from a judgment entered upon a plea of guilty, the appeal will ordinarily present only such questions as go to the free and voluntary character of the plea, or that accused was not of competent intelligence, or was not advised of his legal rights and the nature and consequences of his plea, or as to the sufficiency of the indictment or information to confer jurisdiction, or the legality of the sentence. Smith v. State, Okl.Cr., 462 P.2d 289.

¶3 The Record in the instant case reveals that the trial court had jurisdiction of the person, subject matter, and authority under law, to pronounce the judgment and sentence imposed, and it affirmatively ap *607 pears that the defendant knowingly and intelligently entered a plea of guilty after conferring with counsel, with full knowledge of the nature and consequences of such plea.

¶4 The judgment and sentence is accordingly affirmed.

NIX and BRETT, JJ., concur.
/488/p2d/606 · .json · Public domain