Holder v. United States
Decision Date | 03 June 1968 |
Docket Number | Civ. No. 1115. |
Citation | 285 F. Supp. 380 |
Parties | Robert Lee HOLDER v. UNITED STATES of America. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Texas |
William Wayne Justice, U. S. Atty., Eastern District of Texas, Tyler, Tex., for the United States.
The Petitioner, Robert Lee Holder, was given a five year suspended sentence and placed on active probation by the Honorable Judge Joe W. Sheehy on the 23rd day of December, 1963. A duly authorized Probation Violation Warrant was issued and the Petitioner was given a revocation of probation hearing on the 29th day of October, 1965. The Court revoked probation and required Petitioner to serve the five year sentence originally imposed.
Petitioner's Title 28 U.S.C. § 2255 Motion was denied by this Court and Petitioner has filed a motion for leave to appeal in forma pauperis.
The Petitioner contends that failure to provide Court appointed counsel at the revocation hearing violated his right to counsel as provided by the Sixth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States and Rule 44 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure.
There is considerable authority in support of the proposition that an indigent is not entitled to Court appointed counsel as a matter of right at a revocation of probation hearing.
This Court is thoroughly in accord with the opinion in Brown v. Warden, 351 F.2d 564 (7th Cir. 1965), cert. denied 382 U.S. 1028, 86 S.Ct. 651, 15 L. Ed.2d 541, wherein that Court stated:
Probation can not be demanded as a matter of right, for it is no more than a privilege. The trial judge may give, deny, or revoke probation in accordance with principles governing the exercise of judicial discretion. Burns v. United States, 287 U.S. 216, 53 S.Ct. 154, 77 L.Ed. 266 (1932); Escoe v. Zerbst, 295 U.S. 490, 55 S.Ct. 818, 79 L.Ed. 1566 (1935). A revocation hearing is not a trial requiring an adversary proceeding. The right to counsel may not be built upon the privilege of probation. The sentencing process has ended; no substantial right of the defendant is in jeopardy. The Judge is within his province; he may take what he has given using sound judgment in exercising the discretionary powers inherent in our Judicial system.
The Petitioner's rights under the Federal Probation Act are derived from legislative mandate, and not from the Constitution of the United States. Brown v. Warden, supra. The Comptroller General's office in construing the Federal Probation and Criminal Justice Acts stated that:
"The proceedings to determine if a probation should be revoked and a sentence imposed is a hearing to determine whether an offender had forfeited the privilege of conditional liberty provided by this chapter and the proceedings are not an extension of the original criminal action entitling the offender to legal representation as a constitutional right; therefore, the Criminal Justice Act of 1964, Sec. 3006A of this title, providing for representation of defendants financially unable to obtain an adequate defense does not apply to a hearing for the purpose of revoking a probational privilege and the fact that an order revoking a probation is an appealable final judgment does not entitle the offender to counsel as a matter of right under U.S.C.A.Const. Amend. 6 or under Rule 44 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, the appeal relating back to the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Cole v. Holliday
...(10th Cir. 1968); Lawson v. Coiner, 291 F.Supp. 79 (D.C.1968); United States v. Brierly, 288 F.Supp. 401 (D.C.1968); Holder v. United States, 285 F.Supp. 380 (D.C.1968); Sammons v. United States, 285 F.Supp. 100 (D.C.1968); Sorensen v. Young, 282 F.Supp. 1009 (D.C.1968); Beal v. Turner, 22 ......
-
People ex rel. Menechino v. Warden, Green Haven State Prison
...v. Dickson, 9 Cir., 390 F.2d 585; Williams v. Patterson, 10 Cir., 389 F.2d 374; Rose v. Haskins, 6 Cir., 388 F.2d 91; Holder v. United States, D.C., 285 F.Supp. 380). Each of the cited cases held that a revocation hearing is not a trial requiring an adversary proceeding with representation ......
-
Knight v. State
...States, 285 F.Supp. 100 (U.S.D.C.Texas 1968); United States v. Hartsell, 277 F.Supp. 993 (U.S.D.C.Tenn.1967); Holder v. United States, 285 F.Supp. 380 (U.S.D.C.Texas 1968); United States v. Brierly, 288 F.Supp. 401 (U.S.D.C.Pa.1968); John v. State, 401 (U.S.D.C.Pa.1968); John v. Petition of......
-
Amaya v. Beto, 28634 Summary Calendar.
...Fitzharris, 297 F.Supp. 44 (C.D.Cal.1969); United States ex rel. Bishop v. Brierly, 288 F.Supp. 401 (E.D. Pa.1968); Holder v. United States, 285 F.Supp. 380 (E.D.Tex.1968); Sammons v. United States, 285 F.Supp. 100 (S.D.Tex.1968); United States v. Hartsell, 277 F.Supp. 993 (E.D.Tenn. 1967);......