1. HABEAS CORPUS — Coercion of Plea — Benefit of Counsel — Failure to Advise — Justiciable Question. Where petitioner in filing for writ of habeas corpus, alleged that his plea of guilty to robbery charge was coerced; that he was not afforded benefit of counsel; and that court in accepting his plea of guilty did not advise him of sentence provided by law for crime involved, held, petitioner raised no question properly justiciable in habeas corpus.
2. Face of Petition — Relief — Summary Denial — Propriety. Where it appears on face of petition that petitioner is not entitled to habeas corpus relief, it is proper for court to deny it summarily.
3. Allegations of Petition — Validity of Plea — Rule. Where allegations of petition for writ of habeas corpus go to validity of petitioner's plea of guilty they are properly to be brought under Rule 35 (b), Colo. R. Crim. P., the post conviction remedy provided by the rules of criminal procedure.
MR. JUSTICE DAY delivered the opinion of the Court.
WE will refer to plaintiff in error as petitioner.
Petitioner filed for writ of habeas corpus in the district court, Pueblo, alleging that a plea of guilty entered by him to the charge of robbery was coerced; that he was not afforded benefit of counsel; and that the court, in accepting his tendered plea of guilty, did not advise him of the sentence provided by law for the crime involved. The petition for the writ was denied without a hearing, and it is to this action of the court that he directs this writ of error.
We hold that petitioner raised no question properly justiciable in habeas corpus. Stilley v. Tinsley, 153 Colo. 66, 385 P.2d 677; Specht v. Tinsley, 153 Colo. 235, 385 P.2d 423; Titmus v. Tinsley, 153 Colo. 96, 384 P.2d 728.
It appears on the face of the petition that petitioner is not entitled to habeas corpus relief, so it was proper for the court to deny it summarily. Minor v. People, 154 Colo. 249, 389 P.2d 850; Titmus v. Tinsley, supra.
The allegations of the petition go to the validity of petitioner's plea of guilty and are properly to be brought under rule 35 (b), Colo. R. Crim. P. Vanderhoof v. People, 152 Colo. 147, 380 P.2d 903; Martinez v. People, 152 Colo. 521, 382 P.2d 990.
The judgment is affirmed.