Danks v. State

Citation418 P.2d 488,18 Utah 2d 212
Decision Date28 September 1966
Docket NumberNo. 10513,10513
Partiesd 212 Thomas D. DANKS, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. STATE of Utah, Defendant and Respondent.
CourtUtah Supreme Court

Sheldon A. Vincenti, Ogden, for appellant.

Phil L. Hansen, Atty. Gen., Ronald N. Boyce, Asst. Atty. Gen., Salt Lake City, for respondent.

TUCKETT, Justice.

The appellant, Thomas D. Danks, a prisoner confined in the Utah State Prison, appeals from a judgment of the District Court of Weber County, denying his application for writ of habeas corpus.

Appellant complains that the trial court erred in not appointing counsel to represent him at the hearing on his motion for a new trial. He had been convicted of the crime of robbery.

At the time of the preliminary hearing in connection with the robbery charge, appellant was represented by an attorney, Mr. Philip S. Kenny. After the preliminary hearing Mr. Danks asked Mr. Kenny to withdraw from the case. At the time of appellant's arraignment in the District Court, the court appointed Mr. L. G. Bingham to represent him in that court. Mr. Bingham represented Mr. Danks throughout the trial. At the conclusion of the trial, and upon the jury returning a verdict of guilty, appellant then fired Mr. Bingham. At the hearing of the appellant's motion for a new trial, he requested the District Court to appoint another attorney to represent him, which the court declined to do, but did offer to make Mr. Bingham available to assist him, which offer appellant declined.

Mr. Danks then appealed his case to this Court. 1 Upon appeal Walter R. Ellett of Murray, Utah represented the appellant. This Court found the evidence was sufficient as a matter of law to sustain the conviction and affirmed the lower court. Under these circumstances, appellant is in no position to complain about the absence of counsel on the hearing of his motion. There is no obligation on the part of the Court to continue to appoint counsel after the defendant in the case has discharged assigned counsel for no apparent reason. We approve the language in the New Jersey case of State v. Rinaldi. 2'It is enough that the attorney assigned to the appeal is qualified to represent the prisoner, and that he has advised with him and done whatever possible to represent him competently. Counsel is not required to dance to the prisoner's tune.

'Those unfortunate enough to be caught up in the web of the law and who, mistakenly or not, consider themselves aggrieved, must disabuse themselves...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 cases
  • State v. Wulffenstein
    • United States
    • Utah Supreme Court
    • 6 Febrero 1986
    ...member of our bar who is willing to identify with the interests of the defendant and present the available defenses. Danks v. State, 18 Utah 2d 212, 418 P.2d 488 (1966), cert. denied, 385 U.S. 1016, 87 S.Ct. 734, 17 L.Ed.2d 553 (1967); State v. Gray, Utah, 601 P.2d 918 (1979). Counsel assur......
  • People v. Johns, Cr. 13449
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • 26 Diciembre 1967
    ...of court calendars and of the litigation of others equally entitled to the time and consideration of the courts.' In Danks v. State (1966), 18 Utah 2d 212, 418 P.2d 488 (cert. denied 385 U.S. 1016, 87 S.Ct. 734, 17 L.Ed.2d 553), the court disposed of a strikingly similar situation as 'Appel......
  • State v. Little, 10654
    • United States
    • Utah Supreme Court
    • 22 Marzo 1967
    ...64 Wash.2d 591, 392 P.2d 1010; State v. Smith, 16 Utah 2d 374, 401 P.2d 445.2 State v. Hines, 6 Utah 2d 126, 307 P.2d 887; Danks v. State, 18 Utah 2d 212, 418 P.2d 488.3 State v. Montayne, 18 Utah 2d 38, 414 P.2d ...
  • Cothrum v. State
    • United States
    • United States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma
    • 7 Septiembre 1972
    ...v. State, supra; Carney v. State, Okl.Cr., 406 P.2d 1003 (1965); People v. Pitman, 25 A.D.2d 637, 268 N.Y.S.2d 83; Danks v. State, 18 Utah 2d 212, 418 P.2d 488. United States v. Dougherty, CA, DC, 6/30/72, 11 Gr.L. Immediately prior to trial defendant filed 'pro se' a motion to quash the in......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT