Baker v. State
| Citation | 56 N.W. 1088,86 Wis. 474 |
| Parties | BAKER v. STATE. |
| Decision Date | 28 November 1893 |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Wisconsin |
Error from circuit court, Ashland county; J. K. Parish, Judge.
E. W. Baker was convicted on a criminal charge, and brought error. He now moves for a writ of mandamus to compel the circuit judge to appoint an attorney selected by him to prosecute his writ of error at the expense of the county. Writ denied.
The other facts fully appear in the following statement by LYON, C. J.:
The record herein having been remitted to the circuit court of Ashland county, to be returned to this court when a bill of exceptions should be settled in the case, with such bill attached thereto, and this court having declined to appoint counsel for plaintiff in error to prosecute his writ of error, (84 Wis. 584, 54 N. W. 1003,) the circuit court made an order appointing W. W. O'Keefe, Esq., of Ashland, an attorney of this court, to settle a bill of exceptions, and to prosecute such writ of error in this court at the expense of the county of Ashland. During the month of September last, a motion, founded on a verified petition of plaintiff in error and an affidavit of Rublee A. Cole, was submitted to the circuit court, praying that such appointment of Mr. O'Keefe be vacated, and said Cole appointed instead to perform the same service at the expense of the county. In his petition the petitioner substantially declines to be represented in the cause by O'Keefe, or by any attorney other than Mr. Cole. Plaintiff in error, by Mr. Cole, his attorney, now moves this court to send its writ of mandamus to Judge Parish, requiring him to decide such motion, and shows in support thereof that the circuit court had not decided the same up to November 10, 1893. He further asks that, if the motion for a mandamus is denied, the clerk of the circuit court of Ashland county be directed to return the record to this court.Rublee A. Cole, for plaintiff in error.
The Attorney General, for the State.
The motion for a mandamus must be denied. The circuit court has not refused to decide the motion for a change of attorneys to prosecute the writ of error in this court at the cost of the county. Neither has it delayed to decide such motion so long that a refusal to decide it can fairly be inferred therefrom. The motion is pending, and doubtless will be decided in due course of procedure in that court. At least such is the presumption, and it is not repelled by anything we find in the motion...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Ades
...of his own selection. McCleary v. State, 122 Md. 394, 400, 89 A. 1100; People v. Barnes, 270 Ill. 574, 579, 110 N. E. 881; Baker v. State, 86 Wis. 474, 56 N. W. 1088; 8 R. C. L. 84; 16 C. J. There is no authority for the proposition that a defendant without financial means should be compell......
-
Mulkovich v. State, 75--325--CR
...may have whatever counsel he chooses to retain and may refuse to accept the services of counsel he does not want. Baker v. State (1893), 86 Wis. 474, 56 N.W. 1088. In the usual case, due process is denied when counsel is imposed upon a defendant against his will. Brown v. State (1964), 24 W......
-
Rahhal v. State
...(1971), 50 Wis.2d 280, 283, 184 N.W.2d 107, 109; Peters v. State (1971), 50 Wis.2d 682, 687, 184 N.W.2d 826; see also Baker v. State (1893), 86 Wis. 474, 476, 56 N.W. 1088. There is some indication in the record that the attorney whom Rahhal claims he wanted had appeared on the day of trial......
-
State ex rel. Burns v. Erickson
...selected by the court in the exercise of a sound legal discretion must be accepted. 23 C.J.S. Criminal Law Sec. 982(5); Baker v. State, 86 Wis. 474, 56 N.W. 1088; People v. Kotek, 306 Mich. 408, 11 N.W.2d 7; People v. Ortiz, 195 Cal.App.2d 112, 15 Cal.Rptr. 398; People v. Chessman, 52 Cal.2......