Patrick Emmett Dwyer v. E. P. Perini, Superintendent, Etc.

Sixth Circuit

Patrick Emmett Dwyer v. E. P. Perini, Superintendent, Etc.

437 F.2d 1355, 1971 U.S. App. LEXIS 11489

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

DecidedMarch 8, 1971

Docket20609

StatusPublished

This text of 437 F.2d 1355 (Patrick Emmett Dwyer v. E. P. Perini, Superintendent, Etc.) 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

Patrick Emmett Dwyer v. E. P. Perini, Superintendent, Etc., 437 F.2d 1355, 1971 U.S. App. LEXIS 11489 (6th Cir. 1971).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from the United States District Court, Northern District of Ohio, of an order dismissing a petition for a writ of habeas corpus.

Appellant was convicted in Ohio of burglary and larceny. In his petition, Appellant contends that his arrest, detention, and various searches of his person, of his car and of the scene of the crime were unlawful. Further, he contends he was denied effective assistance of counsel and that the trial court judge in Ohio improperly charged the jury which convicted him.

*1356 Each of the grounds raised by Appellant are without merit on appeal. The record discloses that Appellant was effectively represented by competent counsel and that the charge of the trial judge, insofar as error is alleged, was lawful and nonprejudicial. Under the facts of this case, the various searches of Appellant’s car and of the scene of the crime were lawful. Chambers v. Maroney, 399 U.S. 42, 46-52, 90 S.Ct. 1975, 26 L.Ed.2d 419 (1970), Harris v. United States, 390 U.S. 234, 88 S.Ct. 992, 19 L.Ed.2d 1067 (1968), Ker v. California, 374 U.S. 23, 42-43, 83 S.Ct. 1623, 10 L.Ed.2d 726 (1963). All other claims alleged by the Appellant are not of sufficient importance to have prejudiced his cause.

Upon a careful review of the entire record and upon due consideration of all of the errors alleged, we find that the errors, if any, in the Appellate's state proceedings were “harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.” Chapman v. United States, 386 U.S. 18, 87 S.Ct. 824, 17 L.Ed.2d 705 (1967).

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from the United States District Court, Northern District of Ohio, of an order dismissing a petition for a writ of habeas corpus.

Appellant was convicted in Ohio of burglary and larceny. In his petition, Appellant contends that his arrest, detention, and various searches of his person, of his car and of the scene of the crime were unlawful. Further, he contends he was denied effective assistance of counsel and that the trial court judge in Ohio improperly charged the jury which convicted him.

*1356 Each of the grounds raised by Appellant are without merit on appeal. The record discloses that Appellant was effectively represented by competent counsel and that the charge of the trial judge, insofar as error is alleged, was lawful and nonprejudicial. Under the facts of this case, the various searches of Appellant’s car and of the scene of the crime were lawful. Chambers v. Maroney, 399 U.S. 42, 46-52, 90 S.Ct. 1975, 26 L.Ed.2d 419 (1970), Harris v. United States, 390 U.S. 234, 88 S.Ct. 992, 19 L.Ed.2d 1067 (1968), Ker v. California, 374 U.S. 23, 42-43, 83 S.Ct. 1623, 10 L.Ed.2d 726 (1963). All other claims alleged by the Appellant are not of sufficient importance to have prejudiced his cause.

Upon a careful review of the entire record and upon due consideration of all of the errors alleged, we find that the errors, if any, in the Appellate's state proceedings were “harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.” Chapman v. United States, 386 U.S. 18, 87 S.Ct. 824, 17 L.Ed.2d 705 (1967).

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

437 F.2d 1355, 1971 U.S. App. LEXIS 11489, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/patrick-emmett-dwyer-v-e-p-perini-superintendent-etc-ca6-1971.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack