Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

William Bryant Mason v. Peter J. Pitchess, Sheriff of Los Angeles County

William Bryant Mason v. Peter J. Pitchess, Sheriff of L.A. County, 440 F.2d 454 (9th Cir. 1971)

Type
Opinion
Court
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1971-06-03
Topic
general

PER CURIAM: The district court granted a writ of habeas corpus on the ground that Petitioner did not effectively waive counsel in his state trial. The district court made its determination without an evidentiary hearing and solely because the state court judge did not make adequate inquiries of petitioner before allowing him to reject the services of a public defender and represent himself. In Hodge v. United States, 414 F.2d 1040 (9th Cir. 1969), and Arnold v. United States, 414 F.2d 1056 (9th Cir. 1969), we rejected the contention that under Von Moltke v.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed William Bryant Mason v. Peter J. Pitchess, Sheriff of Los Angeles County. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by
6 opinions
MASON v. PITCHESS,440 F.2d 454(9th Cir. 1971)
William Bryant MASON, Petitioner-Appellee, v. Peter J. PITCHESS, Sheriff
of Los Angeles County, et al., Respondents-Appellants.
No. 25483.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
April 14, 1971.
Rehearing Denied June 3, 1971.
Jack K. Weber, Deputy Atty. Gen. (appeared), William E. James, Asst. Atty. Gen., Evelle J. Younger, Atty. Gen., Los Angeles, Cal., for respondents-appellants.

William Bryant Mason, in pro. per.
Before CHAMBERS, BROWNING, and WRIGHT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
The district court granted a writ of habeas corpus on the ground that Petitioner did not effectively waive counsel in his state trial.

The district court made its determination without an evidentiary hearing and solely because the state court judge did not make adequate inquiries of petitioner before allowing him to reject the services of a public defender and represent himself.

In Hodge v. United States,414 F.2d 1040(9th Cir. 1969), and Arnold v. United States,414 F.2d 1056(9th Cir. 1969), we rejected the contention that under Von Moltke v. Gillies,332 U.S. 708, 68 S.Ct. 316, 92 L.Ed. 309 (1948), an inadequate inquiry by the trial judge conclusively establishes absence of effective waiver. On the record in this case a hearing was required to determine whether petitioner knowingly and intelligently waived counsel.SeeSessions v. Wilson,372 F.2d 366, 369-370 (9th Cir. 1967).

Reversed and remanded.Page 455