Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

Jewel Bertram Wooley, Jr. v. Consolidated City of Jacksonville and Duval County, State of Florida

433 F.2d 980

Type
Opinion
Court
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1970-10-27
Topic
general

PER CURIAM: In this case the District Court held that a defendant in a municipal court, in the absence of waiver, has a right to counsel if the potential penalty in all pending charges could amount to as much as imprisonment for 90 days or a fine of $500. The decision of the District Court is reported, 308 F.Supp. 1194 (M.D., Fla., 1970). We agree with the District Court that a prisoner in the custody *981 of municipal authorities may, in proper cases, have the benefit of the writ of habeas corpus. We consider it of no moment that the pro se petitioner did not correctly style his case. We further agree that this petitioner-appellee was entitled to the benefit of the decision rendered in Harvey v.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed Jewel Bertram Wooley, Jr. v. Consolidated City of Jacksonville and Duval County, State of Florida. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Authority status
pending
Cited by
1 opinion
WOOLEY v. CONSOLIDATED CITY OF JACKSONVILLE,433 F.2d 980(5th Cir. 1970)
Jewel Bertram WOOLEY, Jr., Petitioner-Appellee, v. CONSOLIDATED CITY OF
JACKSONVILLE and Duval County, State of Florida, Respondents-Appellants.
No. 29583 Summary Calendar.fn*
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
October 27, 1970.
David U. Tumin, Asst. Counsel, James C. Rinaman, Jr., Gen. Counsel, William L. Durden, Special Counsel, Jacksonville, Fla., for respondents-appellants.

Robert W. Elrod, Jacksonville Beach, Fla., amicus curiae, Fla. Municipal Judges Assn.

Jewel Bertram Wooley, Jr. pro se; Samuel S. Jacobson, (Court-appointed) Datz Jacobson, Jacksonville, Fla., for petitioner-appellee.
Before WISDOM, COLEMAN, and SIMPSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
In this case the District Court held that a defendant in a municipal court, in the absence of waiver, has a right to counsel if the potential penalty in all pending charges could amount to as much as imprisonment for 90 days or a fine of $500.

The decision of the District Court is reported,308 F. Supp. 1194(M.D., Fla., 1970). We agree with the District Court that a prisoner in the custodyPage 981of municipal authorities may, in proper cases, have the benefit of the writ of habeas corpus. We consider it of no moment that the pro se petitioner did not correctly style his case.

We further agree that this petitioner-appellee was entitled to the benefit of the decision rendered in Harvey v. Mississippi, 5 Cir., 1965,340 F.2d 263.

The judgment of the District Court is

Affirmed.
  1. Rule 18, 5th Cir.; See Isbell Enterprises, Inc. v. Citizens Casualty Co. of New York et al., 5th Cir. 1970,431 F.2d 409, Part I. ↩