Wright v. Eckle
146 N.E.2d 890, 76 Ohio Law. Abs. 323, 1957 Ohio App. LEXIS 1099
Opinion
OPINION
Petitioner requests the court “in conformity with provisions of the Constitution of Ohio and the provisions of the U. S. Federal Statute, Title 28, Section 1915. (D), to appoint counsel to represent petitioner
in this action.”
There is no provision in the Constitution of Ohio or by statute for [324]*324the appointment of counsel for an indigent petitioner in an action in habeas corpus. The Federal Statute which petitioner cites does not control procedure in Ohio courts.
The motion will be denied.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Wright v. Eckle, 146 N.E.2d 890, 76 Ohio Law. Abs. 323, 1957 Ohio App. LEXIS 1099 (Ohio Ct. App. 1957).
146 N.E.2d 890 (Wright v. Eckle) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
State ex rel. Johnson v. Ohio Adult Parole Auth.
2000 Ohio 61 (Ohio Supreme Court, 2000)
State ex rel. Johnson v. Ohio Adult Parole Authority
736 N.E.2d 469 (Ohio Supreme Court, 2000)