Bullett v. Staggs
| Decision Date | 24 October 1978 |
| Docket Number | No. 14206,14206 |
| Citation | 250 S.E.2d 38,162 W.Va. 199 |
| Parties | Jerry BULLETT v. Honorable John STAGGS, Magistrate, etc., et al. |
| Court | West Virginia Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court
1. Absent a knowing and intelligent waiver, no person may be imprisoned for any offense, whether classified as petty, misdemeanor, or felony, unless he was represented by counsel at his trial.
2. W.Va.Code, 1931, 51-11-5, as amended, constitutes sufficient authority for the appointment of counsel by the circuit court of one charged with a violation of a municipal ordinance, which violation could result in imprisonment.
William B. Carey, Berkeley Springs, for relator.
Chauncey H. Browning, Atty. Gen., Claude A. Brown, Asst. Atty. Gen., Charleston, for respondents.
In this original proceeding in prohibition the petitioner seeks to prohibit the respondents, Shirley Gross, Mayor of the Town of Paw Paw and John Staggs, a Magistrate of Morgan County, wherein such town is situate, from proceeding to try him on certain charges which allegedly constitute violations of municipal ordinances until counsel is provided to represent him.
It appears from the pleadings and exhibits that the petitioner, Jerry Bullett, was charged in three separate warrants with the offenses of fleeing from an officer, disturbing the peace and obstructing justice. These warrants were made returnable before Mayor Gross, but for some reason, not apparent on the record, were transferred to Magistrate Staggs. It is alleged in the petition that by reason of the impending trial before the magistrate the petitioner's liberty is in jeopardy. By reason thereof, the petitioner, alleging indigency, has requested the appointment of counsel to assist him. On the ground that "there is no machinery available in West Virginia for the appointment of a lawyer to defend persons accused of violating municipal ordinances", each of these respondents denied his request for counsel.
The state agrees that the petitioner is entitled to counsel, but, in the absence of a statute specifically providing therefor in a case involving a violation of a municipal ordinance, seeks direction from this Court. Thus, we are called upon to determine whether, in this instance, the petitioner is entitled to the assistance of counsel and, if so, the manner in which counsel can be appointed.
Since the time of the decisions in Gideon v. Wainright, 372 U.S. 335, 83 S.Ct. 792, 9 L.Ed.2d 799, 93 A.L.R.2d 733 (1963) and State ex rel. May v. Boles, 149 W.Va. 155, 139 S.E.2d 177 (1964), the right of an indigent defendant to the assistance of counsel has been so well established in all jurisdictions of this country that it is no longer necessary to cite further authorities in support of such right. As reflected in Argersinger v. Hamlin, 407 U.S. 25, 37, 92 S.Ct. 2006, 2012, 32 L.Ed.2d 530 (1972), this right to the assistance of counsel extends to those accused of petty crimes and misdemeanors as well as to those charged with the commission of felonies. The Court said: "We hold, therefore, that absent a knowing and intelligent waiver, no person may be imprisoned for any offense, whether classified as petty, misdemeanor, or felony, unless he was represented by counsel at his trial."
That Argersinger controls the instant case is clearly demonstrated by the following quote by that Court from Stevenson v. Holzman, 254 Or. 94, 458 P.2d 414 (1969), with which it expressed agreement:
We hold that no person may be deprived of his liberty who has been denied the assistance of counsel as...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Eden
...Supreme Court reasoned that presence of the defendant was essential in order to assist his counsel. Boyd, supra at 718.5 Bullett v. Staggs, W.Va., 250 S.E.2d 38 (1978). The Court noted that "(t)he fact that there is no specific statutory language providing that a municipal court or a magist......
-
State ex rel. Jones v. Warmuth
...Coal Corp. v. Doe, W.Va., 220 S.E.2d 672 (1975) (right to court-appointed counsel in civil and criminal contempts); Bullett v. Staggs, W.Va., 250 S.E.2d 38 (1978) (court-appointed counsel for violation of municipal ordinances); State ex rel. Lemaster v. Oakley, 157 W.Va. 590, 203 S.E.2d 140......
-
State v. Cole, 18448
...whether classified as petty, misdemeanor, or felony, unless he was represented by counsel at his trial." See also Bullet v. Staggs, 162 W.Va. 199, 250 S.E.2d 38 (1978). Blosser and Bullet thus support the conclusion that an administrative proceeding to revoke a driver's license due to an ar......
-
Hubby v. Carpenter
...counsel, as guaranteed by both the United States Constitution 6 and the West Virginia Constitution, was extended in Bullett v. Staggs, 162 W.Va. 199, 250 S.E.2d 38 (1978), to criminal trials in municipal courts as reflected by Syllabus Point 1: "Absent a knowing and intelligent waiver, no p......