Tabor v. Maxwell

Ohio Supreme Court

Tabor v. Maxwell

209 N.E.2d 206, 3 Ohio St. 2d 106, 32 Ohio Op. 2d 71, 1965 Ohio LEXIS 455

Ohio Supreme Court·Decided July 7, 1965·No. No. 39266·Published

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Petitioner contends that he was deprived of his constitutional rights by the refusal of the court at the preliminary hearing to appoint counsel to act on his behalf and the failure to appoint counsel until after he had pleaded not guilty to the indictment. Petitioner made no incriminating statements during this period which were used against him.

Petitioner remanded to custody.

Tart, C. J., Zimmerman, Matthias, 0.’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.

Petitioner contends that he was deprived of his constitutional rights by the refusal of the court at the preliminary hearing to appoint counsel to act on his behalf and the failure to appoint counsel until after he had pleaded not guilty to the indictment. Petitioner made no incriminating statements during this period which were used against him.

Petitioner remanded to custody.

Tart, C. J., Zimmerman, Matthias, 0.’Neill, Herbert, Schneider and Brown, JJ., concur.

Tabor v. Maxwell, 209 N.E.2d 206, 3 Ohio St. 2d 106, 32 Ohio Op. 2d 71, 1965 Ohio LEXIS 455 (Ohio 1965).

Pincite

209 N.E.2d 206 (Tabor v. Maxwell) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.