State v. Bryant

Ohio Supreme Court

State v. Bryant

238 N.E.2d 562, 15 Ohio St. 2d 62, 44 Ohio Op. 2d 36, 1968 Ohio LEXIS 373

CourtOhio Supreme Court

DecidedJune 19, 1968

DocketNo. 68-93

StatusPublished

This text of 238 N.E.2d 562 (State v. Bryant) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Ohio Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State v. Bryant, 238 N.E.2d 562, 15 Ohio St. 2d 62, 44 Ohio Op. 2d 36, 1968 Ohio LEXIS 373 (Ohio 1968).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Whether appellant was represented by counsel when he pleaded guilty to burglary is a question of fact which can be resolved only after an evidentiary hearing. In a case where an accused is not represented by counsel at the time he pleads guilty and the record does not show whether the accused was advised of his right to counsel or that he intelligently waived counsel, it is incumbent on the court in a postconviction proceeding to conduct a hearing on such questions and make findings [64]*64of fact in relation thereto. State v. Smith, 12 Ohio St. 2d 7; State v. Perry, 10 Ohio St. 2d 175.

A presumption that appellant was represented by-counsel when he pleaded guilty, based on the absence of an entry of withdrawal of counsel who allegedly appeared only for a limited purpose, will not suffice to deny relief without a hearing. At such hearing, the facts relating to representation by counsel, or the explanation and possible waiver of appellant’s rights thereto may be determined and there will be no need to indulge in presumptions from a silent record. See Carnley v. Cochran, 369 U. S. 506.

The judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed and the cause is remanded to the Court of Common Pleas for further proceedings according to law.

Judgment reversed.

Zimmerman, Matthias, O’Neill, Herbert, Schneider and Brown, JJ., concur.

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

Per Curiam.

Whether appellant was represented by counsel when he pleaded guilty to burglary is a question of fact which can be resolved only after an evidentiary hearing. In a case where an accused is not represented by counsel at the time he pleads guilty and the record does not show whether the accused was advised of his right to counsel or that he intelligently waived counsel, it is incumbent on the court in a postconviction proceeding to conduct a hearing on such questions and make findings [64]*64of fact in relation thereto. State v. Smith, 12 Ohio St. 2d 7; State v. Perry, 10 Ohio St. 2d 175.

A presumption that appellant was represented by-counsel when he pleaded guilty, based on the absence of an entry of withdrawal of counsel who allegedly appeared only for a limited purpose, will not suffice to deny relief without a hearing. At such hearing, the facts relating to representation by counsel, or the explanation and possible waiver of appellant’s rights thereto may be determined and there will be no need to indulge in presumptions from a silent record. See Carnley v. Cochran, 369 U. S. 506.

The judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed and the cause is remanded to the Court of Common Pleas for further proceedings according to law.

Judgment reversed.

Zimmerman, Matthias, O’Neill, Herbert, Schneider and Brown, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

238 N.E.2d 562, 15 Ohio St. 2d 62, 44 Ohio Op. 2d 36, 1968 Ohio LEXIS 373, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-bryant-ohio-1968.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack