Edward Barker v. The State of Ohio

Sixth Circuit

Edward Barker v. The State of Ohio

330 F.2d 594, 1964 U.S. App. LEXIS 5709

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit·Decided April 15, 1964·No. 15444_1·Published·Cited by 74 cases

Opinion

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 *595 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.

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

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 *595 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.

Edward Barker v. The State of Ohio, 330 F.2d 594, 1964 U.S. App. LEXIS 5709 (6th Cir. 1964).

Pincite

330 F.2d 594 (Edward Barker v. The State of Ohio) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related