Crockett v. Haskins, 39357
| Decision Date | 23 June 1965 |
| Docket Number | No. 39357,39357 |
| Citation | 2 Ohio St.2d 322,31 O.O.2d 580,208 N.E.2d 744 |
| Parties | , 31 O.O.2d 580 CROCKETT v. HASKINS, Supt., London Correctional Institution. |
| Court | Ohio Supreme Court |
This is an action in habeas corpus originating in this court. In February 1963, petitioner, George A. Crockett, having been previously indicted for murder in the second degree, pleaded guilty to manslaughter and was sentenced to the Ohio Penitentiary.
George A. Crockett, in pro. per.
William B. Saxbe, Atty. Gen., and William C. Baird, Columbus, for respondent.
In this action, petitioner alleges that he was arrested without a warrant, that his home was searched without a warrant (the officers found a 38-caliber revolver during such search), that he was without counsel, that he did not waive a jury trial and was not informed of his rights, and that he was not indicted for the crime to which he pleaded guilty.
The crime occurred on the evening of October 14, 1962, at about 11 o'clock. Petitioner was arrested early in the morning of October 15, and about three hours ofter he was taken to the police station he confessed to the crime. When he first appeared before the Municipal Court he entered a no-contest plea because he did not have a lawyer. The hearing was continued. Subsequently, petitioner retained counsel who appeared with him at him preliminary hearing at which time he was bound over to the grand jury and released on bail. He remained on bail until the time of his arraignment. Although petitioner alleges that he was not represented by counsel at this time because he had no money, his counsel was present and persuaded the prosecuting attorney to accept the plea of manslaughter instead of second degree murder. Clearly, petitioner was represented by counsel, and his contention that he was not is without merit.
Petitioner's allegation as to an illegal search is without merit. Petitioner pleaded guilty, thus no evidence was introduced against him. Even if the state had illegally obtained evidence, inasmuch as it was not used, it did not affect the validity of his conviction. Villasino v. Maxwell, Warden, 174 Ohio St. 483, 190 N.E.2d 265, and Poe v. Maxwell, Warden, 177 Ohio St. 28, 201 N.E.2d 703.
Petitioner's arguments that he did not waive a jury in relation to the offense to which he pleaded guilty and that he was not indicted for the offense to which he pleaded guilty both arise from the fact that he was indicted for murder in the second degree and pleaded guilty to manslaughter. Pet...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Crockett v. Haskins, 16849.
...he was not represented by counsel during this time because he had no money. However, the Supreme Court of Ohio in Crockett v. Haskins, 2 Ohio St.2d 322, 208 N.E.2d 744 (1965), found from a report of its Master Commissioner that his counsel was present and persuaded the prosecution to accept......
-
State v. Dudas, 2008 Ohio 3262 (Ohio App. 6/27/2008)
...plea of guilty, appellant waived the right to challenge in subsequent proceedings the legality of a search and seizure. Crocket v. Haskins (1965), 2 Ohio St.2d 322, 323 ***; Villasino v. Maxwell (1963), 174 Ohio St. 483, 484 ***; Poe v. Maxwell (1964), 177 Ohio St. 28, 29 {¶82} "The United ......
-
State v. Dudas, 2009 Ohio 1003 (Ohio App. 3/6/2009)
...waived the right to assert a Fourth Amendment violation that allegedly occurred before the entry of his plea. See Crocket v. Haskins (1965), 2 Ohio St.2d 322, 323; see, also, Villasino v. Maxwell (1963), 174 Ohio St. 483, 484; Poe v. Maxwell (1964), 177 Ohio St. 28, 29. "Petitioner in the i......
-
State v. Dudas, 2008 Ohio 3261 (Ohio App. 6/27/2008)
...a criminal defendant waives the right to challenge in subsequent proceedings the legality of a search and seizure. Crocket v. Haskins (1965), 2 Ohio St.2d 322, 323; Villasino v. Maxwell (1963), 174 Ohio St. 483, 484; Poe v. Maxwell (1964), 177 Ohio St. 28, {¶26} The United States Supreme Co......