Percy Lee Reid, Jr. v. Jimmy Rose, Warden

Sixth Circuit

Percy Lee Reid, Jr. v. Jimmy Rose, Warden

493 F.2d 1248

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

DecidedMarch 13, 1974

Docket73-2060

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 493 F.2d 1248 (Percy Lee Reid, Jr. v. Jimmy Rose, Warden) 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

Percy Lee Reid, Jr. v. Jimmy Rose, Warden, 493 F.2d 1248 (6th Cir. 1974).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant in this case was charged with and pled guilty to assault with intent to murder and robbery with a deadly weapon when he was 16 years old. He was sentenced to two concurrent sentences of 20 years and 10 years, respectively. He now appeals from denial of his petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (1970). He contends that his constitutional rights to due process were violated by the facts that at a juvenile court waiver hearing, no testimony was taken prior to the entry of the waiver, and that he was denied counsel at a critical stage in the criminal proceeding because he had no lawyer and was offered none at the juvenile court waiver proceeding.

We would consider that these issues posed substantial problems for critical consideration and probable reversal, absent a 1973 decision of the United States Supreme Court reversing this court in the case of Tollett v. Henderson, 411 U. S. 258, 93 S.Ct. 1602, 36 L.Ed.2d 235 (1973). In Tollett a majority of the court held:

“When a criminal defendant has solemnly admitted in open court that he is in fact guilty of the offense with which he is charged, he may not thereafter raise independent claims relating to the deprivation of constitutional rights that occurred prior to the entry of the guilty plea.” Tollett v. Henderson, supra, at 267, 93 S.Ct. at 1608.

We affirm the District Court’s denial of the writ because, and only because, we believe our decision is controlled by Tollett v. Henderson, supra.

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

PER CURIAM.

Appellant in this case was charged with and pled guilty to assault with intent to murder and robbery with a deadly weapon when he was 16 years old. He was sentenced to two concurrent sentences of 20 years and 10 years, respectively. He now appeals from denial of his petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (1970). He contends that his constitutional rights to due process were violated by the facts that at a juvenile court waiver hearing, no testimony was taken prior to the entry of the waiver, and that he was denied counsel at a critical stage in the criminal proceeding because he had no lawyer and was offered none at the juvenile court waiver proceeding.

We would consider that these issues posed substantial problems for critical consideration and probable reversal, absent a 1973 decision of the United States Supreme Court reversing this court in the case of Tollett v. Henderson, 411 U. S. 258, 93 S.Ct. 1602, 36 L.Ed.2d 235 (1973). In Tollett a majority of the court held:

“When a criminal defendant has solemnly admitted in open court that he is in fact guilty of the offense with which he is charged, he may not thereafter raise independent claims relating to the deprivation of constitutional rights that occurred prior to the entry of the guilty plea.” Tollett v. Henderson, supra, at 267, 93 S.Ct. at 1608.

We affirm the District Court’s denial of the writ because, and only because, we believe our decision is controlled by Tollett v. Henderson, supra.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

493 F.2d 1248, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/percy-lee-reid-jr-v-jimmy-rose-warden-ca6-1974.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack