Frazier v. Moran

Supreme Court of Rhode Island

Frazier v. Moran

401 A.2d 1297, 121 R.I. 963, 1979 R.I. LEXIS 1902

CourtSupreme Court of Rhode Island

DecidedApril 20, 1979

DocketM. P. No. 79-100

StatusPublished

This text of 401 A.2d 1297 (Frazier v. Moran) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Rhode Island primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Frazier v. Moran, 401 A.2d 1297, 121 R.I. 963, 1979 R.I. LEXIS 1902 (R.I. 1979).

Pincite

Opinion

This is a petition for habeas corpus, in which the petitioner seeks the appointment of counsel. The petitioner (Frazier) is presently incarcerated at the Adult Correctional Institutions because he violated the terms and conditions of his 1973 parole agreement. In his petition Frazier claims that G.L. 1956 (1969 Reenactment) §13-8-19, insofar as it requires a prisoner whose parole has been revoked to serve the remainder of his original sentence without being given any credit for the period while he was on parole, is violative of the federal constitutional guarantee of due process and its bar against double jeopardy.

We see no reason for the appointment of counsel because of our belief that an appropriate response to the petitioner’s contentions can be found in State v. Fazzano, 96 R.I. 472, 478, 194 A.2d 680, 684 (1963), and Rondoni v. Langlois, 89 R.I. 373, 376-77, 153 A.2d 163, 164-65 (1959).

Accordingly, the petition for habeas corpus with its accompanying motion are both denied and dismissed.

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

This is a petition for habeas corpus, in which the petitioner seeks the appointment of counsel. The petitioner (Frazier) is presently incarcerated at the Adult Correctional Institutions because he violated the terms and conditions of his 1973 parole agreement. In his petition Frazier claims that G.L. 1956 (1969 Reenactment) §13-8-19, insofar as it requires a prisoner whose parole has been revoked to serve the remainder of his original sentence without being given any credit for the period while he was on parole, is violative of the federal constitutional guarantee of due process and its bar against double jeopardy.

We see no reason for the appointment of counsel because of our belief that an appropriate response to the petitioner’s contentions can be found in State v. Fazzano, 96 R.I. 472, 478, 194 A.2d 680, 684 (1963), and Rondoni v. Langlois, 89 R.I. 373, 376-77, 153 A.2d 163, 164-65 (1959).

Accordingly, the petition for habeas corpus with its accompanying motion are both denied and dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

401 A.2d 1297, 121 R.I. 963, 1979 R.I. LEXIS 1902, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/frazier-v-moran-ri-1979.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack