EDWARD BARKER, APPELLANT,
v.
THE STATE OF OHIO, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that the appellant's petition for rehearing, raising claims of lack of hearing and counsel, was without merit and denied it.
Appellant sought a writ of habeas corpus, which was dismissed. He now petitions for rehearing, claiming he was not granted a hearing and lacked counse…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Civil Proceedings cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
On March 9, 1964, 6 Cir., 328 F. 2d 582, we affirmed the judgment of the District Court dismissing appellant’s petition for writ of habeas corpus, stating the reasons therefor in an opinion handed down at the same time.
Appellant’s present petition for rehearing presents a new contention that he was not granted a hearing in the District Court and was not represented by counsel in that Court.
The issue raised by the petition for habeas corpus was purely a legal one. No hearing was required. United States, ex rel. Burage v. Pate, 316 F. 2d 582, C.A.7th; Jackson v. Steiner, 261 F. 2d 447, 448, C.A.4th; Hodge v. Huff, 78 U.S.App.D.C. 329, 140 F. 2d 686, 689, cert. denied, 322 U.S. 733, 64 S.Ct. 946, 88 L.Ed. 1567.
The orders herein appealed from were entered on December 26, 1962, and February 13, 1963. The record contains a letter dated November 30, 1962, to the District Judge from a Cleveland attorney stating in part, “Please be advised that I will represent the above captioned petitioner in his hearing on Writ of Habeas Corpus filed in your court.” The record does not show that he thereafter withdrew from the case. In fact, said attorney appeared for the petitioner in this appeal and made oral argument on his behalf.
In addition, it has been many times held that the constitutional right to counsel in criminal prosecutions provided by the Sixth Amendment does not apply to an application for a writ of habeas corpus, which is a civil proceeding. Collins v. Heinze, 217 F. 2d 62, C.A.9th, cert denied, 349 U.S. 940, 75 S.Ct. 786, 99 L.Ed. 1268; Dorsey v. Gill, 80 U.S.App.D.C. 9, 148 F. 2d 857, 877, cert. denied, 325 U.S. 890, 65 S.Ct. 1580, 89 L.Ed. 2003; Graeber v. Schneckloth, 241 F. 2d 710, C.A.9th; Stidham v. United States, 170 F. 2d 294, 297, C.A. 8th. See also: Gilpin v. United States, 265 F. 2d 203, 204, C.A.6th; McCartney v. United States, 311 F. 2d 475, C.A.7th, cert. denied, 374 U.S. 848, 83 S.Ct. 1910, 10 L.Ed.2d 1068; Crowe v. United States, 175 F. 2d 799, 801, C.A.4th, cert. denied, 338 U.S. 950, 70 S.Ct. 478, 94 L.Ed. 586, rehearing denied, 339 U.S. 916, 70 S.Ct. 559, 94 L.Ed. 1341; Richardson v. United States, 199 F. 2d 333, 335, C.A.10th.
Appellant’s petition for rehearing is denied.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Johnson v. Avery, 393 U.S. 483 (U.S. 1969)
-
United States ex rel. George Hetenyi v. Wilkins, 348 F.2d 844 (2d Cir. 1965)
-
Cates v. Ciccone, 422 F.2d 926 (8th Cir. 1970)
Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited (23 total)
- Dorsey v. Gill, 148 F.2d 857 (D.C. Cir. 1945)
- Arnold v. McAuliffe, 338 U.S. 950 (U.S. 1950)
- Crowe v. United States, 175 F.2d 799 (4th Cir. 1949)
- Thompson v. Robinson, 338 U.S. 950 (U.S. 1950)
- Stidham v. United States, 170 F.2d 294 (8th Cir. 1948)
- Richardson v. United States, 199 F.2d 333 (10th Cir. 1952)
- Hodge v. Huff, 322 U.S. 733 (U.S. 1944)
- Grand River Dam Auth. v. Bd. of Educ. of Wyandotte, 322 U.S. 733 (U.S. 1944)
- Stewart v. Ragen, 325 U.S. 842 (U.S. 1945)
- Bailey v. Florida, 325 U.S. 890 (U.S. 1945)