Gill v. Turner

Utah Supreme Court

Gill v. Turner

504 P.2d 1003, 29 Utah 2d 35, 1972 Utah LEXIS 1023

CourtUtah Supreme Court

DecidedDecember 26, 1972

DocketNo. 12892

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 504 P.2d 1003 (Gill v. Turner) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Utah Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Gill v. Turner, 504 P.2d 1003, 29 Utah 2d 35, 1972 Utah LEXIS 1023 (Utah 1972).

Pincite

Opinion

HENRIOD, Justice:

Appeal from a denial of a petition for writ of habeas corpus in a case where Gill pleaded guilty in April, 1967 to one robbery charge, whereupon two other robbery charges were dismissed. Affirmed.

Four and a half years after Gill pleaded guilty, he seeks a release, urging the rather common complaint that his counsel were incompetent, and he did not enter the plea voluntarily. Neither urgence finds substance in the record. This case simply represents a case where the accused says one thing and his counsel, — two of them, one of which withdrew on account of conflict of interest, — said the opposite. Both counsel were and are reputable members of the Bar of this state, and the lower court obviously gave more credence to their sworn testimony, and not unreasonably so, we think.

Under familiar rules of appellate review, we affirm the trial court.

CALLISTER, C. J., and TUCKETT, ELLETT and CROCKETT, JJ., concur.

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

HENRIOD, Justice:

Appeal from a denial of a petition for writ of habeas corpus in a case where Gill pleaded guilty in April, 1967 to one robbery charge, whereupon two other robbery charges were dismissed. Affirmed.

Four and a half years after Gill pleaded guilty, he seeks a release, urging the rather common complaint that his counsel were incompetent, and he did not enter the plea voluntarily. Neither urgence finds substance in the record. This case simply represents a case where the accused says one thing and his counsel, — two of them, one of which withdrew on account of conflict of interest, — said the opposite. Both counsel were and are reputable members of the Bar of this state, and the lower court obviously gave more credence to their sworn testimony, and not unreasonably so, we think.

Under familiar rules of appellate review, we affirm the trial court.

CALLISTER, C. J., and TUCKETT, ELLETT and CROCKETT, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

504 P.2d 1003, 29 Utah 2d 35, 1972 Utah LEXIS 1023, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gill-v-turner-utah-1972.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack