Doughty v. Sacks
| Decision Date | 20 June 1962 |
| Docket Number | No. 37036,37036 |
| Citation | 183 N.E.2d 368,173 Ohio St. 407 |
| Parties | , 20 O.O.2d 39 DOUGHTY v. SACKS, Warden. |
| Court | Ohio Supreme Court |
Marvin Doughty, in pro. per.
Mark McElroy, Atty. Gen., Aubrey A. Wendt and John J. Connors, Jr., Columbus, for respondent.
Petitioner urges as a ground for his release the alleged beating and other misconduct which took place after his arrest and prior to his indictment.
The grounds upon which release from custody in a habeas corpus proceeding may be had relate to jurisdiction. The Court of Common Pleas acquired jurisdiction of the offense by statute and over the person of the petitioner by the indictment. Even assuming that the facts are as petitioner claims, any irregularities which occurred prior to the indictment did not affect the jurisdiction of the Court of Common Pleas. 26 Ohio Jurisprudence (2d), 561, Habeas Corpus, Section 10.
Petitioner urges that his constitutional rights were infringed upon because he did not have the assistance of counsel. Petitioner never requested that counsel be appointed for him, and, furthermore, by his plea of guilty he waived his right to counsel.
In In re Burson, 152 Ohio St. 375, 89 N.E.2d 651, the third paragraph of the syllabus reads as follows:
The petitioner contends further that there was a forced confession in this case, and that he was compelled to be a witness against himself. He is undoubtedly referring to a confession which he contends he made to the police. Assuming such confession was made, it did not enter into petitioner's case. No evidence was introduced by reason of the fact that petitioner pleaded guilty to the charge. It must be remembered that there was no trial but merely a plea of guilty. The indictment charged that petitioner 'did carnally know, forcibly and against her will * * * a female person under 12 years of age, to wit, eight years of age.' The truth of these material allegations in the indictment was admitted by the entering of the plea of guilty. McConnaughy v. Alvis, Warden, 165 Ohio St. 102, 133 N.E.2d 133.
This was a judicial confession made in the presence of the court on a plea of guilty--not one...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Laskey
...to find a way to avoid the effect of the decision. In each instance, this court has been summarily reversed. 1. Doughty v. Sacks (1962), 173 Ohio St. 407, 183 N.E.2d 368, remanded by the United States Supreme Court for reconsideration in the light of Gideon v. Wainwright (1963), 372 U.S. 33......
-
United States v. LaVallee
...Court of Ohio rejected his petition, on the ground that Doughty had waived his right to counsel by pleading guilty. Doughty v. Sacks, 173 Ohio St. 407, 183 N.E.2d 368 (1962). Doughty's petition for certiorari reached the Supreme Court after the decision in Gideon. In a brief per curiam opin......
-
Palumbo v. State of New Jersey
...84 S.Ct. 702, 11 L.Ed. 2d 650 (1963). 31 United States ex rel. Durocher v. La Vallee, supra note 27, at 310. 32 Doughty v. Maxwell, 173 Ohio St. 407, 183 N.E.2d 368 (1962). 33 Doughty v. Maxwell, 372 U.S. 781, 83 S.Ct. 1106, 10 L.Ed.2d 139 34 175 Ohio St. 46, 191 N.E.2d 727 (1963). 35 369 U......
-
Manning v. State
...Ohio rejected his petition for habeas corpus on the ground that he had waived his right to counsel by pleading guilty. Doughty v. Sacks, 173 Ohio St. 407, 183 N.E.2d 368. Doughty's petition for certiorari reached the Supreme Court after the decision in Gideon. In a per curiam opinion the Su......