Isom Moses v. Frank A. Eyman, Superintendent, Arizona State Prison

Ninth Circuit

Isom Moses v. Frank A. Eyman, Superintendent, Arizona State Prison

445 F.2d 306, 1971 U.S. App. LEXIS 9882

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedJune 2, 1971

Docket24983_1

StatusPublished

This text of 445 F.2d 306 (Isom Moses v. Frank A. Eyman, Superintendent, Arizona State Prison) 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

Isom Moses v. Frank A. Eyman, Superintendent, Arizona State Prison, 445 F.2d 306, 1971 U.S. App. LEXIS 9882 (9th Cir. 1971).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

The issues in this habeas corpus appeal by an Arizona prisoner revolve around his allegations, unresolved by an evidentiary hearing, that, being indigent, he requested the assistance of appointed counsel and the presence of a court reporter at his preliminary hearing, and that these requests were denied. The preliminary hearing was held in 1964, and the background facts are stated in State v. Moses, 101 Ariz. 426, 420 P.2d 560 (1966), affirming the conviction.

Coleman v. Alabama, 399 U.S. 1, 90 S.Ct. 1999, 26 L.Ed.2d 387 (1970), enlarging the concept of “rights or defenses” which may render a preliminary hearing a “critical stage” of a criminal proceeding, is to be applied prospectively only. Olsen v. Ellsworth, 438 F.2d 630 (9th Cir. 1971); Brown v. Craven, 438 F.2d 334 (9th Cir. 1971). The district court opinion herein, reported in 328 F. Supp. 1227, correctly states the applicable law as it existed prior to Coleman.

For the reasons stated in that opinion, we affirm.

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

PER CURIAM:

The issues in this habeas corpus appeal by an Arizona prisoner revolve around his allegations, unresolved by an evidentiary hearing, that, being indigent, he requested the assistance of appointed counsel and the presence of a court reporter at his preliminary hearing, and that these requests were denied. The preliminary hearing was held in 1964, and the background facts are stated in State v. Moses, 101 Ariz. 426, 420 P.2d 560 (1966), affirming the conviction.

Coleman v. Alabama, 399 U.S. 1, 90 S.Ct. 1999, 26 L.Ed.2d 387 (1970), enlarging the concept of “rights or defenses” which may render a preliminary hearing a “critical stage” of a criminal proceeding, is to be applied prospectively only. Olsen v. Ellsworth, 438 F.2d 630 (9th Cir. 1971); Brown v. Craven, 438 F.2d 334 (9th Cir. 1971). The district court opinion herein, reported in 328 F. Supp. 1227, correctly states the applicable law as it existed prior to Coleman.

For the reasons stated in that opinion, we affirm.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

445 F.2d 306, 1971 U.S. App. LEXIS 9882, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/isom-moses-v-frank-a-eyman-superintendent-arizona-state-prison-ca9-1971.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack