Robert Roy Peters v. Harold A. Cox, Warden, New Mexico State Penitentiary

Tenth Circuit

Robert Roy Peters v. Harold A. Cox, Warden, New Mexico State Penitentiary

341 F.2d 575

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit

DecidedMarch 5, 1965

Docket7946_1

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 341 F.2d 575 (Robert Roy Peters v. Harold A. Cox, Warden, New Mexico State Penitentiary) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Robert Roy Peters v. Harold A. Cox, Warden, New Mexico State Penitentiary, 341 F.2d 575 (10th Cir. 1965).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The question presented in this habeas corpus appeal is whether the Supreme Court of New Mexico denied appellant’s constitutional rights by refusing and failing to appoint counsel to assist him in taking an appeal in a criminal case from that court to the Supreme Court of the United States. We hold that there has been no denial of constitutional rights under the circumstances of this case.

It is, of course, the law that the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution requires the appointment of counsel to represent an indigent defendant in a state criminal trial. Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335, 83 S.Ct. 792, 9 L.Ed.2d 799; Hickock v. Crouse, 10 Cir., 334 F.2d 95. It is also the law that under the due process and equal protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment, an indigent defendant has a right to appointed counsel on the appeal of a state criminal conviction. Douglas v. People of State of California, 372 U.S. 353, 83 S.Ct. 814, 9 L.Ed.2d 811. But, we have been cited to no authority requiring, or even permitting, a state supreme court to appoint counsel for an indigent defendant to represent him on his appeal to the Supreme Court of the United States. Our own research has revealed none. The judgment below is therefore affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

The question presented in this habeas corpus appeal is whether the Supreme Court of New Mexico denied appellant’s constitutional rights by refusing and failing to appoint counsel to assist him in taking an appeal in a criminal case from that court to the Supreme Court of the United States. We hold that there has been no denial of constitutional rights under the circumstances of this case.

It is, of course, the law that the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution requires the appointment of counsel to represent an indigent defendant in a state criminal trial. Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335, 83 S.Ct. 792, 9 L.Ed.2d 799; Hickock v. Crouse, 10 Cir., 334 F.2d 95. It is also the law that under the due process and equal protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment, an indigent defendant has a right to appointed counsel on the appeal of a state criminal conviction. Douglas v. People of State of California, 372 U.S. 353, 83 S.Ct. 814, 9 L.Ed.2d 811. But, we have been cited to no authority requiring, or even permitting, a state supreme court to appoint counsel for an indigent defendant to represent him on his appeal to the Supreme Court of the United States. Our own research has revealed none. The judgment below is therefore affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

341 F.2d 575, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/robert-roy-peters-v-harold-a-cox-warden-new-mexico-state-penitentiary-ca10-1965.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack