WOOD
v.
UNITED STATES
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.
Wood was convicted of refusing to report for civilian employment under the Universal Military Training and Service Act after the trial court denied his request for appointed counsel without adequately inquiring into his financial ability to pay for counsel or afford only partial payment. The Supreme Court vacated the conviction and remanded the case, holding that the trial court erred by failing to properly explore whether Wood could afford counsel under the Criminal Justice Act's provisions allowing partial payment arrangements.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Per Curiam.
Petitioner was found guilty by the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia of refusing to report for civilian employment, in violation of § 12 of the Universal Military Training and Service Act, 62 Stat. 622, 50 U. S. C. App. § 462. Before trial he filed an affidavit with the court requesting assigned counsel pursuant to the Criminal Justice Act, 18 U. S. C. § 3006A. The court considered the affidavit, questioned petitioner and disapproved the request. The Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit granted leave to appeal in forma pauperis, assigned counsel to assist petitioner in his appeal and affirmed the conviction. Petitioner seeks a writ of certiorari.
Before this Court the Solicitor General has conceded that the record does not convincingly show that there was adequate inquiry into the question of petitioner’s financial ability to retain counsel, in that “the trial court should have explored the possibility that petitioner could afford only partial payment for the services of trial counsel and that counsel be appointed on that basis, as the Criminal Justice Act permits (see 18 U. S. C. § 3006(A) (c) and (f)).” The Solicitor General urges, however, that there is no basis for believing that petitioner suffered prejudice from the District Court’s error, an argument we find unpersuasive.
The motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and the petition for writ of certiorari are granted, the judgment is vacated and the case is remanded to the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit for reconsideration in light of the Solicitor General’s Memorandum and the relevant criteria of the Criminal Justice Act.
Mr. Justice Black dissents.
Mr. Justice Marshall took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (17 total)
-
Reynold Enrique v. State, 408 So. 2d 635 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)…, 32 L.Ed.2d 530 (1972); Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335, 83 S.Ct. 792, 9 L.Ed.2d 799 (1963). Absent a determination that an accused is financially able to retain counsel, he may not be denied the assistance of counsel. See Wood v. United States, 389 U.S. 20, 88 S.Ct. 3, 19 L.Ed.2d 20 (1967). Castro’s affirmative response at his very first hearing to the court’s question, “Are you going to make arrangements to get an attorney?” in the absence of a determination that he was financially able to carry out…
-
Bowen v. State, 236 So. 2d 16 (Fla. 2d DCA 1970)…9 (1968); Sapio v. State, Fla.App.1969, 223 So. 2d 759; People v. Chism, 17 Mich.App. 196, 169 N.W. 2d 192 (1969); State v. Anaya, 76 N.M. 572, 417 P. 2d 58 (1966); and State v. Cowart, 251 S.C. 360, 162 S.E. 2d 535. See also Wood v. United States, 389 U.S. 20, 88 S.Ct. 3, 19 L.Ed.2d 20 (1967); Nielsen v. Turner, 287 F.Supp. 116 at 122 (D.C.Utah 1968); and Keur v. State, Fla.App. 1964, 160 So. 2d 546. Reversed and remanded for a new trial following further proceedings consistent with this opinion. HOBSO…
-
Cassius Marsellus Clay, Jr. v. United States, 397 F.2d 901 (5th Cir. 1968)…391. It has been long established that there is no constitutional right to exemption from military service by virtue of conscientious objection or religious calling. Wood v. United States, 5 Cir., 1967, 373 F. 2d 894, 900, reversed on other grounds, 389 U.S. 20, 88 S.Ct. 3, 19 L.Ed.2d 20 (1967); George v. United States, 9 Cir., 1952, 196 F. 2d 445, 449. These exemptions do not spring from the Constitution but from the Congress. George v. United States, supra. The Supreme Court said in Jacobson v. Commonwea…1 / 5
Previewing 3 of 17 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence