Halleck v. Koloski, 39596
| Decision Date | 15 December 1965 |
| Docket Number | No. 39596,39596 |
| Citation | 212 N.E.2d 601,4 Ohio St.2d 76 |
| Parties | , 33 O.O.2d 441 HALLECK, Appellee, v. KOLOSKI, Supt., Ohio State Reformatory, Appellant. |
| Court | Ohio Supreme Court |
This is an appeal from a judgment in an action in habeas corpus originating in the Court of Appeals. That court granted petitioner his release from custody. The basic facts are that appellee, Carl Edward Halleck, was indicted by the Grand Jury of Lawrence County on January 12, 1959, on three counts, assault with intent to kill, unlawful assault with intent to rob, and attempt to rob and kill. On January 16, 1959, appellee pleaded guilty to the first and third counts and was sentenced to the Ohio State Reformatory.
It was appellee's position that, in the trial court, he was not aware of his right to state-appointed counsel, was not informed of this right, and did not waive counsel.
To controvert appellee's argument, appellant introduced into evidence the journal entry of the trial court and an affidavit of the trial judge.
The journal entry reads in part as follows:
'* * * Carl Edward Halleck, being brought into court in custody of the sheriff for arraignment, was inquired of whether he wished to be represented by counsel, and the defendant stating that he did not desire to be represented by counsel, and the court having explained the nature of the charges and having read the indictment to the defendant, defendant was thereupon arraigned, and for plea to the indictment saith that he is guilty as charged.'
The pertinent part of the affidavit reads as follows:
'Affiant says that he has no recollection of the actual arraignment and plea of said defendant, but that it is the rule and undeviating practice in the Court of Common Pleas of Lawrence County, Ohio, to explain to a defendant his rights, read his indictment, and inquire if he desires counsel to represent him, and affiant has no reason to believe that this procedure was not followed in this case, and the journal entry signed by affiant recites that this was done in the case of State of Ohio v. Carl Edward Halleck.'
The Court of Appeals found that petitioner was not sufficiently informed of his constitutional rights and ordered that petitioner be released from custody.
Carl Edward Halleck, in pro. per.
William B. Saxbe, Atty. Gen., and Leo J. Conway, Columbus, for appellant.
In an action in habeas corpus, the burden of proof is upon the petitioner to establish his right to release. Yarbrough v....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Starratt
...sustained); Amer v. United States, 367 F.2d 803 (8th Cir. 1967); Estep v. United States, 251 F.2d 579 (5th Cir. 1958); Halleck v. Koloski, 4 Ohio St.2d 76, 212 N.E.2d 601; Tucker v. State, 248 S.C. 344, 149 S.E.2d 769; McGuffey v. Turner, 18 Utah 2d 354, 423 P.2d In State v. Magrum, 76 N.D.......
-
Chari v. Vore
...habeas corpus cases, the burden of proof is on the petitioner to establish his right to release. Halleck v. Koloski (1965), 4 Ohio St.2d 76, 77, 33 O.O.2d 441, 441-442, 212 N.E.2d 601, 602; Yarbrough v. Maxwell (1963), 174 Ohio St. 287, 288, 22 O.O.2d 341, 342, 189 N.E.2d 136, More specific......
-
Carman v. Pinkney
...proof to establish a right to release. Chari v. Vore, 91 Ohio St.3d 323, 325, 744 N.E.2d 763 (2001), citing Halleck v. Koloski, 4 Ohio St.2d 76, 77, 212 N.E.2d 601 (1965); Yarbrough v. Maxwell, 174 Ohio St. 287, 288, 189 N.E.2d 136 (1963). {¶13} For summary judgment, the movant has the burd......
-
State ex rel. Hill v. LaRose, Case No. 19 MA 0025
...64 Ohio St.3d 77, 78, 591 N.E.2d 1241 (1992). The burden is on the petitioner to establish a right to release. Halleck v. Koloski, 4 Ohio St.2d 76, 77, 212 N.E.2d 601 (1965); Yarbrough v. Maxwell, 174 Ohio St. 287, 288, 189 N.E.2d 136 (1963). "Like other extraordinary-writ actions, habeas c......