Opinion

Ross v. Haskins

2 Ohio St. 2d 145
31 Ohio Op. 2d 237
207 N.E.2d 246
1965 Ohio LEXIS 507

Court: Ohio Supreme Court
Filed: May 5, 1965
Status: Published
On the bench: Brown, Herbert, Matthias, Neill, Schneider, Taet, Zlmmerman
Cited by: 4 cases
Authority: More cited than 64.5%

The opinion

Per Curiam.

Petitioner bases his right to release on an alleged deprivation of his constitutional right to the assistance of counsel. Petitioner states that he was not offered counsel, was not told of his right to counsel and did not waive counsel.

The trial judge appeared as a witness at the hearing, and his testimony fully corroborates petitioner’s contention.

The petitioner testified that he was not aware of his right to have counsel appointed.

Thus, under the doctrine of Carnley v. Cochran, Dir., 369 U. S. 506 , and Gideon v. Wainwright, Dir., 372 U. S. 335 , petitioner is entitled to release.

Petitioner released from custody.

TaET, O. J., ZlMMERMAN, MATTHIAS, 0’NEILL, HERBERT, Schneider and Brown, JJ., concur.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.