Charley B. Washa v. Frank A. Eyman, as Superintendent of Arizona State Penitentiary

Ninth Circuit

Charley B. Washa v. Frank A. Eyman, as Superintendent of Arizona State Penitentiary

429 F.2d 568

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedAugust 27, 1970

Docket23353

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 429 F.2d 568 (Charley B. Washa v. Frank A. Eyman, as Superintendent of Arizona State Penitentiary) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Charley B. Washa v. Frank A. Eyman, as Superintendent of Arizona State Penitentiary, 429 F.2d 568 (9th Cir. 1970).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Appeal from a denial of habeas corpus.

Petitioner’s counsel states in brief: “It is the position of Petitioner that in his various pleadings * * * he advanced certain constitutional questions of such nature, complexity and seriousness, that the District Court could not, in full compliance with Petitioner’s constitutional rights, rule thereon without benefit of hearing on the merits and appointment of counsel to aid him therein.” We reject the contentions.

Petitioner’s application tendered both legal and factual issues. The former, of course, required no evidence to resolve and the record of the proceedings in the state trial court, included as part of respondent’s return to the order to show cause, showed that the latter had been reliably determined by the state court after a full hearing. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d). Nor did the application disclose “unusual circumstances” entitling Petitioner to court-appointed counsel. Schlette v. People, 284 F.2d 827 (9th Cir. 1960), cert. den. 366 U.S. 940, 81 S.Ct. 1664, 6 L.Ed.2d 852.

The judgment is affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM:

Appeal from a denial of habeas corpus.

Petitioner’s counsel states in brief: “It is the position of Petitioner that in his various pleadings * * * he advanced certain constitutional questions of such nature, complexity and seriousness, that the District Court could not, in full compliance with Petitioner’s constitutional rights, rule thereon without benefit of hearing on the merits and appointment of counsel to aid him therein.” We reject the contentions.

Petitioner’s application tendered both legal and factual issues. The former, of course, required no evidence to resolve and the record of the proceedings in the state trial court, included as part of respondent’s return to the order to show cause, showed that the latter had been reliably determined by the state court after a full hearing. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d). Nor did the application disclose “unusual circumstances” entitling Petitioner to court-appointed counsel. Schlette v. People, 284 F.2d 827 (9th Cir. 1960), cert. den. 366 U.S. 940, 81 S.Ct. 1664, 6 L.Ed.2d 852.

The judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

429 F.2d 568, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/charley-b-washa-v-frank-a-eyman-as-superintendent-of-arizona-state-ca9-1970.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack