Carter v. State
| Decision Date | 07 September 1965 |
| Citation | 27 Wis.2d 451,136 N.W.2d 561 |
| Parties | Oliver S. CARTER, Plaintiff in Error, v. STATE of Wisconsin, Defendant in Error. |
| Court | Wisconsin Supreme Court |
Oliver S. Carter, pro se.
No brief filed for defendant in error.
Defendant Carter has filed a brief without the benefit of counsel in support of his motion for rehearing after his court-appointed attorney who prosecuted defendant's writ of error had withdrawn as counsel. This brief does not attack our prior opinion which passed on the only issue raised in defendant's original brief. Instead these three new issues are raised:
(1) Secs. 954.01 and 954.02, Stats., under which the warrant for defendant's arrest are unconstitutional and void because 'contrary to the Constitution of the United States.'
(2) This warrant was also invalid because the complaint fails to state sufficient essential facts upon which a warrant of arrest can be issued.
(3) There was such inadequate representation by counsel in the trial court as to amount to a denial of defendant's rights under the Sixth and Fourteenth amendments to the United States constituion.
Ordinarily this court will not consider issues on a motion for rehearing not previously raised on the original appeal or writ of error. We here depart from this customary practice because of the fact that defendant is an indigent prisoner acting without benefit of counsel.
While we are not convinced that the arrest was invalid, any invalidity of the original arrest has been rendered entirely immaterail by defendant's pleading guilty to the information without raising any issue with respect to the validity of the arrest. Bartozek v. State. 1 See also Hawkins v. State. 2
Defendant employed counsel of his own selection to represent him at his original arraignment. Subsequently it developed that defendant was without funds to pay counsel, and the trial court then appointed the same counsel to represent defendant as an indigent. Because this counsel first refused the appointment and then reluctantly accepted it, defendant contends this established a half-hearted defense on the part of counsel. The record simply does not substantiate this contention. The only specific complaint defendant levels against his trial counsel is the latter's failure to raise the issue of claimed illegal arrest. A finding of inadequate representation of counsel cannot be grounded on this because ordinarily counsel gains no advantage for the defendant by invalidating...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Stockwell v. State
...involvement was insufficient to sustain a conviction for aiding and abetting: 'In Carter v. State (1965), 27 Wis.2d 451, 134 N.W.2d 444, 136 N.W.2d 561, a conviction of armed robbery was sustained where the defendant was the driver of the get away car and shared in the '. . . 'The court the......
-
State ex rel. La Follette v. Raskin
...545, 547. The reference to 'nonjurisdictional defects' meant only subject matter jurisdiction.17 (1965), 27 Wis.2d 451, 134 N.W.2d 444, 136 N.W.2d 561.18 Id. at page 455b, 136 N.W.2d at page 562.19 We decided to this effect in denying the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus on November 15, ......
-
Taylor v. State, S
...in all cases. See Hawpetoss v. State (1971), 52 Wis.2d 71, 187 N.W.2d 823. In Carter v. State (1965), 27 Wis.2d 451, 134 N.W.2d 444, 136 N.W.2d 561, a conviction of armed robbery was sustained where the defendant was the driver of the get-away car and shared in the proceeds. The court state......
-
Lock v. State
...itself when the issue is not raised at the latest at the time of the arraignment. Carter v. State (1965), 27 Wis.2d 451, 134 N.W.2d 444, 136 N.W.2d 561. See also Pillsbury v. State, Wis., 142 N.W.2d 187 (decided May 10, 1966), for a similar problem. Counsel invites us to reconsider our hold......