“Indescribable chaos in the administration of criminal justice surely would be the inevitable consequence of . . . permitting convicted persons to raise repeatedly and without limitation questions previously and finally adjudicated adversely to [them].”
How later courts described this case
- “Indescribable chaos in the administration of criminal justice surely would be the inevitable consequence of . . . permitting convicted persons to raise repeatedly and without limitation questions previously and finally adjudicated adversely to [them].”
- “It is fundamental that habeas corpus and post-conviction proceedings may not be employed to raise and relitigate or review questions decided and disposed of in a direct appeal.”
- “It is fundamental that habeas corpus . . . proceedings may not be employed to raise and relitigate or review questions decided and disposed of in a direct appeal.”
- a petitioner may not seek post-conviction relief on grounds not raised in the petition or amended petition
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
O’BRIEN, Judge
(concurring).
I am not disposed to argue with the propositions of law stated in the majority opinion. However, the issue raised in the post-conviction petition was incompetency of counsel who, in this instance, was privately retained. The majority opinion discusses the allusion in the trial judge’s findings to the law that actions or non-action of retained counsel are imputed to the defendant alone, and then discourses at length on the nonoccurrence of State action where retained counsel are involved.
My review of this record satisfies me that the only issue raised in the petition is the adequacy of counsel and I am simply not wedded to the proposition that representation by retained counsel can never fall below standards of competence which would not result in a constitutional abrogation.
Otherwise, I concur fully with the majority opinion.