Creel v. Hudspeth, 2010.
| Decision Date | 21 March 1940 |
| Docket Number | No. 2010.,2010. |
| Parties | CREEL v. HUDSPETH, Warden. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Tenth Circuit |
Appellant pro se.
Summerfield S. Alexander, U. S. Atty., and Homer Davis, Asst. U. S. Atty., both of Topeka, Kan., for appellee.
Before PHILLIPS, BRATTON, and HUXMAN, Circuit Judges.
This appeal is from an order denying a petition for a writ of habeas corpus seeking the release of petitioner from the federal penitentiary at Leavenworth, Kansas. An indictment in two counts was regularly returned against petitioner and one Frank Howley in the United States Court for the Western District of Louisiana. The first count charged the transportation of a stolen automobile in interstate commerce, and the second charged the receipt, concealment, storage, barter, sale and disposition of such automobile after its transportation. Petitioner pleaded guilty to both counts, and was sentenced on the first to a term of three years in the penitentiary, while sentence on the second was suspended and petitioner was placed on probation for a period of five years. Commitment issued in due form and respondent detains petitioner under its terms.
The attack upon the judgment in the criminal case is that petitioner was not allowed the benefit of counsel. The Sixth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States guarantees to one charged with a crime the right to have the assistance of counsel in his defense. But that is a personal right which may be waived provided it is waived intelligently, understandingly, and in a competent manner. Zahn v. Hudspeth, 10 Cir., 102 F.2d 759. And ordinarily such waiver will be implied where the accused appears in court without counsel and fails to request or indicate in any manner a desire that counsel be assigned to assist him. Buckner v. Hudspeth, 10 Cir., 105 F.2d 396, certiorari denied 308 U. S. 553, 60 S.Ct. 99, 84 L.Ed. ___.
The validity of a judgment and sentence in a criminal case may be challenged in a habeas corpus proceeding on the ground that the accused was denied his constitutional right to have assistance of counsel in his defense, but the judgment is presumed to be correct and may not be lightly set aside, and the burden rests upon the petitioner to show by a clear preponderance of evidence that he was denied such right. Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U.S. 458, 58 S.Ct. 1019.
Here it is merely alleged in the petition that petitioner was not allowed counsel. It is not alleged or suggested...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Sampson v. Channell
- Alves v. Siegel's Broadway Auto Parts, Inc.
-
Bissell v. Amrine
...v. Hudspeth, 10 Cir., 113 F.2d 260; Blood v. Hudspeth, 10 cir., 113 F.2d 470; Leonard v. Hudspeth, 10 Cir., 112 F.2d 121; Creel v. Hudspeth, 10 Cir., 110 F.2d 762; v. Hudspeth, 110 F.2d 812; Towne v. Hudspeth, 10 Cir., 108 F.2d 676; Moore v. Aderhold, 10 Cir., 108 F.2d 729; McCoy v. Hudspet......
-
Evans v. Rives, 8134.
...deprivation of the assistance of counsel in respect of a plea of guilty. 4 Adkins v. Sanford, 5 Cir., 1941, 120 F.2d 471; Creel v. Hudspeth, 10 Cir., 1940, 110 F.2d 762; Kelly v. Aderhold, 10 Cir., 1940, 112 F.2d 118; Harpin v. Johnston, 9 Cir., 1940, 109 F.2d 434, certiorari denied 1940, 3......