Sharp v. Eckle, Supt

Ohio Court of Appeals

Sharp v. Eckle, Supt

171 N.E.2d 747, 111 Ohio App. 303, 14 Ohio Op. 2d 258, 1960 Ohio App. LEXIS 732

CourtOhio Court of Appeals

DecidedJuly 7, 1960

Docket292

StatusPublished

This text of 171 N.E.2d 747 (Sharp v. Eckle, Supt) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Ohio Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Sharp v. Eckle, Supt, 171 N.E.2d 747, 111 Ohio App. 303, 14 Ohio Op. 2d 258, 1960 Ohio App. LEXIS 732 (Ohio Ct. App. 1960).

Pincite

Opinion

Wiseman, P. J.

The petitioner, Paul N. Sharp, who is confined in the London Prison Farm under a sentence of from one to twenty years on a charge of operating a motor vehicle without the owner’s consent, filed his petition in this court for a writ of habeas corpus.

This matter came on to be heard on the petition, the return of the writ, and the testimony of .the petitioner. The petitioner contends that his conviction and sentence are void for the reason that the trial court failed to appoint counsel to represent him. He cites as authority the case of In re Mots, 100 Ohio App., 296, 136 N. E. (2d), 430, wherein the defendant pleaded not guilty and the cause proceeded to trial without counsel for defendant. The court in that ease very properly distinguished the case of In re Burson, 152 Ohio St., 375, 89 N. E. (2d), 651, where, as in the case at bar, the defendant entered a plea of guilty. The rule of law laid down in the Burson case is applicable here. The third paragraph of the syllabus is as follows:

“A plea of guilty to an indictment raises a presumption of waiver of the right to have counsel appointed to aid the person charged in the indictment, unless there are circumstances which rebut and nullify such presumption. Such waiver may be express, providing it is intelligently and understandingly given, or may be implied.”

In the application of this rule of law to the facts in the instant case we hold that there is a presumption that the ac *304 cused waived Ms right to counsel when he pleaded guilty. This presumption is not rebutted. The court did not lose jurisdiction. The sentence was valid.

Petitioner remanded to custody.

Craweord and Kerns, JJ., concur.

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

Wiseman, P. J.

The petitioner, Paul N. Sharp, who is confined in the London Prison Farm under a sentence of from one to twenty years on a charge of operating a motor vehicle without the owner’s consent, filed his petition in this court for a writ of habeas corpus.

This matter came on to be heard on the petition, the return of the writ, and the testimony of .the petitioner. The petitioner contends that his conviction and sentence are void for the reason that the trial court failed to appoint counsel to represent him. He cites as authority the case of In re Mots, 100 Ohio App., 296, 136 N. E. (2d), 430, wherein the defendant pleaded not guilty and the cause proceeded to trial without counsel for defendant. The court in that ease very properly distinguished the case of In re Burson, 152 Ohio St., 375, 89 N. E. (2d), 651, where, as in the case at bar, the defendant entered a plea of guilty. The rule of law laid down in the Burson case is applicable here. The third paragraph of the syllabus is as follows:

“A plea of guilty to an indictment raises a presumption of waiver of the right to have counsel appointed to aid the person charged in the indictment, unless there are circumstances which rebut and nullify such presumption. Such waiver may be express, providing it is intelligently and understandingly given, or may be implied.”

In the application of this rule of law to the facts in the instant case we hold that there is a presumption that the ac *304 cused waived Ms right to counsel when he pleaded guilty. This presumption is not rebutted. The court did not lose jurisdiction. The sentence was valid.

Petitioner remanded to custody.

Craweord and Kerns, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

171 N.E.2d 747, 111 Ohio App. 303, 14 Ohio Op. 2d 258, 1960 Ohio App. LEXIS 732, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sharp-v-eckle-supt-ohioctapp-1960.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack