Frank Barlet v. R. W. Alvis, as Warden, Ohio Penitentiary

Sixth Circuit

Frank Barlet v. R. W. Alvis, as Warden, Ohio Penitentiary

244 F.2d 951, 77 Ohio Law. Abs. 518, 3 Ohio Op. 2d 376, 1957 U.S. App. LEXIS 3182

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

DecidedMay 31, 1957

Docket13005_1

StatusPublished

This text of 244 F.2d 951 (Frank Barlet v. R. W. Alvis, as Warden, Ohio Penitentiary) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Frank Barlet v. R. W. Alvis, as Warden, Ohio Penitentiary, 244 F.2d 951, 77 Ohio Law. Abs. 518, 3 Ohio Op. 2d 376, 1957 U.S. App. LEXIS 3182 (6th Cir. 1957).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Frank Barlet appeals from denial by the United States District Court of his petition for writ of habeas corpus. He avers that his constitutional rights had been violated in his trial in the Common Pleas Court of Hamilton County, Ohio. Among other things, he alleged gross and prejudicial conduct of the prosecuting attorney which, he said, was concurred in and condoned by the trial judge.

The United States District Court afforded him a hearing with full opportunity to show wherein his constitutional rights had been violated. This he utterly failed to do. The attorney who had represented petitioner-appellant at the trial in the State court had been chosen by him; and no showing has been made that the attorney failed to represent him properly, or that he exhibited any lack of skill in doing so. Whether the attorney made mistakes of judgment in conducting the defense is immaterial. The Supreme Court of Ohio has held recently that the remedy for denial of a fair trial on the ground of the inefficiency of counsel is by appeal and not by habeas corpus proceedings, where the court had jurisdiction of the crime and of the person. McConnaughy v. Alvis, 165 Ohio St. 102, 133 N.E.2d 133.

Here, the court had jurisdiction, both of the crime and of the person of the petitioner. Accordingly, the judgment of the district court denying the petition for writ of habeas corpus is affirmed.

It is so ordered.

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

PER CURIAM.

Frank Barlet appeals from denial by the United States District Court of his petition for writ of habeas corpus. He avers that his constitutional rights had been violated in his trial in the Common Pleas Court of Hamilton County, Ohio. Among other things, he alleged gross and prejudicial conduct of the prosecuting attorney which, he said, was concurred in and condoned by the trial judge.

The United States District Court afforded him a hearing with full opportunity to show wherein his constitutional rights had been violated. This he utterly failed to do. The attorney who had represented petitioner-appellant at the trial in the State court had been chosen by him; and no showing has been made that the attorney failed to represent him properly, or that he exhibited any lack of skill in doing so. Whether the attorney made mistakes of judgment in conducting the defense is immaterial. The Supreme Court of Ohio has held recently that the remedy for denial of a fair trial on the ground of the inefficiency of counsel is by appeal and not by habeas corpus proceedings, where the court had jurisdiction of the crime and of the person. McConnaughy v. Alvis, 165 Ohio St. 102, 133 N.E.2d 133.

Here, the court had jurisdiction, both of the crime and of the person of the petitioner. Accordingly, the judgment of the district court denying the petition for writ of habeas corpus is affirmed.

It is so ordered.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

244 F.2d 951, 77 Ohio Law. Abs. 518, 3 Ohio Op. 2d 376, 1957 U.S. App. LEXIS 3182, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/frank-barlet-v-r-w-alvis-as-warden-ohio-penitentiary-ca6-1957.