Wright v. Eckle

Ohio Court of Appeals

Wright v. Eckle

146 N.E.2d 890, 76 Ohio Law. Abs. 323, 1957 Ohio App. LEXIS 1099

CourtOhio Court of Appeals

DecidedFebruary 14, 1957

DocketNo. 227

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 146 N.E.2d 890 (Wright v. Eckle) 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

Wright v. Eckle, 146 N.E.2d 890, 76 Ohio Law. Abs. 323, 1957 Ohio App. LEXIS 1099 (Ohio Ct. App. 1957).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION

By THE COURT:

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.

HORNBECK, PJ, WISEMAN, J, concur.

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