McQueen v. Maxwell, No. 38924

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Ohio
Writing for the CourtPER CURIAM; TAFT, C. J., and ZIMMERMAN, MATTHIAS, O'NEILL, GRIFFITH and HERBERT
Parties, 28 O.O.2d 452 McQUEEN v. MAXWELL, Warden, et al.
Decision Date14 October 1964
Docket NumberNo. 38924

Page 30

177 Ohio St. 30
201 N.E.2d 701, 28 O.O.2d 452
McQUEEN
v.
MAXWELL, Warden, et al.
No. 38924.
Supreme Court of Ohio.
Oct. 14, 1964.

Page 31

James McQueen, in pro. per.

William B. Saxbe, Atty. Gen., and William C. Baird, Columbus, for respondents.

PER CURIAM.

From the evidence adduced at petitioner's hearing, the following facts appear:

Petitioner at the time of his arrest was 21 years of age with a ninth grade education. His intelligence test at the penitentiary produced a grade of 127, which rates him as having superior intelligence, and he had a background of juvenile delinquency, culminating in a term at the Boys Industrial School for stealing at Boys Town. Petitioner also had spent some two years in the United States Army, receiving an undesirable discharge as a result of a special court martial. He testified that he was an amateur boxer and had, just previous to the present trouble, won the A. A. U. 1959 middleweight championship. This fact is substantiated by Menke's Encyclopedia of Sport. He stated that he had received an invitation to attend the Olympic trials. This, basically, is petitioner's background. Other facts will be developed herein.

Petitioner's primary contention is that he requested and was denied counsel from the time of his arrest until the time he pleaded guilty. He makes no allegation that he was not fully aware of his right to counsel. Petitioner testified that he requested counsel at the time of his arrest and when he was arraigned, and that counsel[201 N.E.2d 702] was refused. For this we have only petitioner's word.

This case presents an issue entirely different from the one raised in Escobedo v. Illinois (1964), 378 U.S. 478, 84 S.Ct. 1758, 12 L.Ed.2d 977. The question raised and disposed of in Escobedo related to the right of an accused to consult with previously retained counsel during the course of his interrogation. There, it was held that the refusal to permit the accused to consult with his lawyer during his interrogation constituted a denial of the assistance of counsel and thereby rendered inadmissible any incriminating statement made during the course of the interrogation. The question in the instant case is whether the petitioner's constitutional rights were violated by the failure to appoint counsel at the time of his arrest and prior to his preliminary hearing.

Page 32

Petitioner's alleged request that counsel be appointed to represent him made at the time of his arrest in no way effectuated a violation of his constitutional rights. Although it is true that an accused has a right to consult counsel at such time, no duty or power is imposed upon law-enforcement officers to appoint counsel for an indigent. A request that counsel be appointed to be effective must be directed to the proper authority, the trial court, and,...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 practice notes
  • United States v. State of New Jersey, No. 14833
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (3rd Circuit)
    • May 20, 1965
    ...205 Va. 412, 137 S.E.2d 865 (1964), cert. denied, 380 U.S. 922, 85 S.Ct. 920, 13 L. Ed.2d 806 (1965) and Ohio, McQueen v. Maxwell, 177 Ohio St. 30, 201 N.E.2d 701 (1964), will also require a request for counsel. Ohio adhered to this position in State v. McLeod, 1 Ohio St.2d 60, 203 N.E.2d 3......
  • Com. v. Negri
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
    • September 29, 1965
    ...Commonwealth, 205 Va. 412, 137 S.E.2d 865 (1964), cert. denied, 380 U.S. 922, 85 S.Ct. 920, 13 L.Ed.2d 806 (1965); McQueen v. Maxwell, 177 Ohio St. 30, 201 N.E.2d 701 (1964); Browne v. State, 24 Wis.2d 491, 129 N.W.2d 175, 131 N.W.2d 169 (1964), cert. denied, 379 U.S. 1004, 85 S.Ct. 730, 13......
  • Williams v. State, No. 5064
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
    • March 31, 1965
    ...denial of post-conviction relief where there was no evidence that a guilty plea had been so induced. See also McQueen v. Maxwell, 1964, 177 Ohio St. 30, 201 N.E.2d 8 Suarez v. United States, 5 Cir. 1964, 333 F.2d 366; Starks v. United States, 4 Cir. 1959, 264 F.2d 797; Cuff v. United states......
  • Fair v. Maxwell, No. 39322
    • United States
    • Ohio Supreme Court
    • May 12, 1965
    ...completely cognizant of what he was doing. Madison v. Maxwell, Warden, 177 Ohio St. 84, 202 N.E.2d 617, and McQueen v. Maxwell, Warden, 177 Ohio St. 30, 201 N.E.2d Petitioner remanded to custody. TAFT, C. J., and ZIMMERMAN, MATTHIAS, O'NEILL, HERBERT, SCHNEIDER, and PAUL W. BROWN, JJ., conc......
4 cases
  • United States v. State of New Jersey, No. 14833
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (3rd Circuit)
    • May 20, 1965
    ...205 Va. 412, 137 S.E.2d 865 (1964), cert. denied, 380 U.S. 922, 85 S.Ct. 920, 13 L. Ed.2d 806 (1965) and Ohio, McQueen v. Maxwell, 177 Ohio St. 30, 201 N.E.2d 701 (1964), will also require a request for counsel. Ohio adhered to this position in State v. McLeod, 1 Ohio St.2d 60, 203 N.E.2d 3......
  • Com. v. Negri
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
    • September 29, 1965
    ...Commonwealth, 205 Va. 412, 137 S.E.2d 865 (1964), cert. denied, 380 U.S. 922, 85 S.Ct. 920, 13 L.Ed.2d 806 (1965); McQueen v. Maxwell, 177 Ohio St. 30, 201 N.E.2d 701 (1964); Browne v. State, 24 Wis.2d 491, 129 N.W.2d 175, 131 N.W.2d 169 (1964), cert. denied, 379 U.S. 1004, 85 S.Ct. 730, 13......
  • Williams v. State, No. 5064
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
    • March 31, 1965
    ...denial of post-conviction relief where there was no evidence that a guilty plea had been so induced. See also McQueen v. Maxwell, 1964, 177 Ohio St. 30, 201 N.E.2d 8 Suarez v. United States, 5 Cir. 1964, 333 F.2d 366; Starks v. United States, 4 Cir. 1959, 264 F.2d 797; Cuff v. United states......
  • Fair v. Maxwell, No. 39322
    • United States
    • Ohio Supreme Court
    • May 12, 1965
    ...completely cognizant of what he was doing. Madison v. Maxwell, Warden, 177 Ohio St. 84, 202 N.E.2d 617, and McQueen v. Maxwell, Warden, 177 Ohio St. 30, 201 N.E.2d Petitioner remanded to custody. TAFT, C. J., and ZIMMERMAN, MATTHIAS, O'NEILL, HERBERT, SCHNEIDER, and PAUL W. BROWN, JJ., conc......

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