Whitsell v. Perini
| Decision Date | 09 December 1969 |
| Docket Number | No. 19405.,19405. |
| Parties | Charles E. WHITSELL, Petitioner-Appellant, v. E. P. PERINI, Superintendent, Marion Correctional Institution, Respondent-Appellee. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit |
Charles E. Whitsell in pro. per.
Paul W. Brown, Atty. Gen., Stephen M. Miller, Asst. Atty. Gen., Columbus, Ohio, on brief for respondent-appellee.
Before EDWARDS and CELEBREZZE, Circuit Judges, and CECIL, Senior Circuit Judge.
This is an appeal by Charles E. Whitsell, petitioner-appellant, from an order of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, Western Division, denying his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. The appellant is confined in the Marion Correctional Institution at Marion, Ohio, serving a sentence of one to fifteen years. He was tried before a jury and found guilty of forcibly breaking and entering an uninhabited building in the night season with intent to steal property of value.
The appellant claims that he was questioned without an attorney being present in violation of his constitutional rights, that an incriminating statement which was admitted in evidence was elicited during this questioning, that because his counsel refused to object to the admission of this statement his counsel was ineffectual, and that he was arraigned without the benefit of counsel.
The trial judge decided the case without an evidentiary hearing but he had before him the trial transcript as do we.
If there was any questioning of the appellant in the absence of counsel it was without prejudice to his right to a fair trial unless the specific incriminating statement of which he complains was prejudicial to him. See Crooker v. California, 357 U.S. 433, 439-440, 78 S.Ct. 1287, 2 L.Ed.2d 1448; Escobedo v. Illinois, 378 U.S. 478, 491, 84 S.Ct. 1758, 12 L.Ed.2d 977. Except for this one statement the appellant makes no other complaint that any damaging statements brought out in questioning were introduced in evidence.
The testimony to which the appellant objects involves the statement that he did not try to shoot the officer and came about in the following manner:
The district judge held that this was a voluntary statement made after a full warning to the appellant of his rights and not barred by Escobedo, supra, and Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694. We agree.
The evidence of the appellant's guilt was overwhelming. The statement in question could not have influenced the jury in the face...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hernandez v. State
...S.Ct. 1056, 31 L.Ed.2d 340 (1972); Harrington v. California, 395 U.S. 250, 89 S.Ct. 1726, 23 L.Ed.2d 284 (1972). Also see Whitsell v. Perini, 419 F.2d 95 (6th Cir.1969). Cf. Beasley v. United States, 491 F.2d 687 (6th BRANDES' FAULTING HANNEMAN FOR NOT PURSUING AN INSANITY DEFENSE As to Bra......
-
State v. Edgell
...from the receipt in evidence of the improperly obtained evidence. United States v. Diaz (C.A. 1, 1970), 427 F.2d 636; Whitsell v. Perini (C.A. 6, 1969), 419 F.2d 95; United States v. Sutt (C.A. 7, 1969), 415 F.2d 1305; United States v. Crisp (C.A. 7, 1971), 435 F.2d 354; United States v. Te......
-
Henderson v. Cardwell
...at various stages of the procedure. Mere failure to make objections is not sufficient to establish incompetence of counsel. Whitsell v. Perini, 419 F.2d 95, Decided Dec. 9, 1969 (C.A.6); Rivera v. United States, 318 F.2d 606, 608 (C.A.9); Keller v. Tinsley, 335 F.2d 144, 146 We conclude tha......
-
United States v. Crisp
...424 F.2d 1209, 1215 (7th Cir. 1970); cf. United States ex rel. Moore v. Follette, 425 F.2d 925, 928 (2d Cir. 1970); Whitsell v. Perini, 419 F.2d 95, 96 (6th Cir. 1969). We wish to acknowledge that Robert Friebert of the Milwaukee bar ably and ingeniously represented defendant as appointed c......