Opinion · Ohlaw Ohio

DOUGHTY v. SACKS, 175 Ohio St. 46 (1963)

DOUGHTY v. SACKS, WARDEN., 191 N.E.2d 727 (Ohio 1963)

Type
Opinion
Court
Ohlaw Ohio
Jurisdiction
Ohlaw
Date
1963-06-19
Topic
general

DOUGHTY v. SACKS, 175 Ohio St. 46 (1963) 191 N.E.2d 727 DOUGHTY v. SACKS, WARDEN. No. 37036Supreme Court of Ohio. Decided June 19, 1963.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed DOUGHTY v. SACKS, 175 Ohio St. 46 (1963). The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Authority status
pending
DOUGHTY v. SACKS,175 Ohio St. 46(1963)
191 N.E.2d 727
DOUGHTY v. SACKS, WARDEN.
No. 37036
Supreme Court of Ohio.
Decided June 19, 1963.
Criminal law — Right of accused to counsel — Effect of failure torequest appointment.
ON REMAND from the Supreme Court of the United States.

This case arose as an action in habeas corpus originating in the Supreme Court of Ohio and brought by Marvin Doughty to procure his release from imprisonment in the Ohio Penitentiary in which he was confined as a result of entering a plea of guilty of rape of an eight-year-old girl. Upon consideration thereof the court denied the petitioner his release (173 Ohio St. 407). Petitioner perfected an appeal to the Supreme Court of the United States.
Mr. Marvin Doughty, in propria persona.Mr. Mark McElroy, attorney general,Mr. Aubrey A. WendtandMr.John J. Connors, Jr., for respondent.
Per Curiam.
This case is now before this court as a result of the action of the Supreme Court of the United States in vacating the judgment rendered by this court and remanding it for reconsideration in the light ofGideonv.Wainwright,372 U.S. 335.

The case ofGideonv.Wainwrightheld that the right to counsel is a fundamental constitutional right and the denial thereof constituted a denial of a fair trial.

However, the facts in theGideon caseare completely different from those in the present case. InGideonthe accused specifically asked that counsel be appointed to represent him, which request was denied and the accused was forced to represent himself in the actual trial of the case. Such are not the facts in relation to Doughty. The evidence presented at the original hearing on his application for release by habeas corpus showed that he had discussed the retention of counsel with his wife but never made any request to the court that counsel bePage 47appointed to represent him, unlike Gideon who requested and was refused counsel.

Therefore, the court adheres to its original judgment.Former judgment adhered to.

TAFT, C.J., ZIMMERMAN, MATTHIAS, GRIFFITH, HERBERT and GIBSON, JJ., concur.