Reynolds v. Cochran, No. 115
| Court | United States Supreme Court |
| Writing for the Court | BLACK |
| Citation | 81 S.Ct. 723,5 L.Ed.2d 754,365 U.S. 525 |
| Docket Number | No. 115 |
| Decision Date | 20 March 1961 |
| Parties | Stephen Franklin REYNOLDS, Petitioner, v. H. G. COCHRAN, Jr., Director of Division of Corrections, Florida |
v.
H. G. COCHRAN, Jr., Director of Division of Corrections, Florida.
Mr. Claude Pepper, Tallahassee, Fla., for petitioner.
Mr. George R. Georgieff, Tallahassee, Fla., for respondent.
Page 526
Mr. Justice BLACK delivered the opinion of the Court.
In 1956 petitioner was convicted of grand larceny in the Criminal Court of Polk County, Florida, and sentenced to serve two years in prison. In December 1957, with time for good behavior, petitioner was released from prison and discharged from custody as an absolutely free man. Some two months after his release and discharge, the Polk County prosecutor filed an information against petitioner charging that he 'has been convicted of two (2) felonies under the laws of the State of Florida, contrary to Section 775.09, Florida Statutes, 1957 (F.S.A.)1 * * * and against the peace and dignity of the State of Florida.' The two convictions referred to were the 1956 conviction for grand larceny and a 1934 conviction for robbery for which petitioner had also completely served his sentence. Upon the filing of this information, petitioner was promptly arrested, arraigned and, according to the judgment of the trial court, 'did then and there freely and voluntarily plead guilty to the Information filed.' The court then proceeded to find petitioner 'guilty of the offense of Second Offender' and ordered that for 'said offense, (he) be confined in the State Prison of Florida at hard labor for a term of Ten (10) Years.'2 Petitioner later brought this
Page 527
original petition for habeas corpus in the Supreme Court of Florida challenging his confinement under this judgment on the ground that it was not authorized by the Florida second-offender statute and that it violated both the State and the Federal Constitutions in several different respects. Despite the fact that none of the charges made by petitioner were denied by the State, the Florida court dismissed his petition without a hearing.3 We granted certiorari to consider the correctness of this peremptory denial of the petition in view of the serious nature of the charges made.4
Since it is conceded by the State that the federal questions presented here were properly raised and passed on below, and since it is clear that for the purposes of this proceeding the facts set forth by petitioner must be accepted as true,5 we go directly to the charges made in
Page 528
the petition. Those charges were clearly stated by petitioner himself in the following excerpt from his rather crudely drawn application for habeas corpus:
Page 529
his attorney was to arrive this morning this date being the 20th day day of February 1958, that after being so informed 'the trial court so stated to your petitioner 'you do not need counsel in this case.' Counsel would not be of any assistance you your petitioner, 'No point in calling a Doctor to a man already dead.'
'The trial court then proceeded to read off two (2) convictions from your petitioners record and then asked, You are guilty of these two convictions, are you not? Petitioner saying yes your Honor, but the court, I find, you guilty of being a 'second offender' and sentence you Stephen Franklin Reynolds to ten (10) years in State Prison * * *.'
On the basis of these facts, petitioner contends, among other things, that his confinement is not authorized by the Florida second-offender statute because he had already served the sentences imposed upon each of his prior convictions, 6 and that such confinement violates the state and federal constitutional prohibitions against ex post facto laws and against double jeopardy. It would, of course, be entirely inappropriate under the circumstances of this case for this Court to consider the
Page 530
questions posed under state law. Nor do we find it necessary to consider these particular questions raised under the Federal Constitution beyond the observation that they certainly cannot fairly be characterized as frivolous.7 For we think it clear that this case must be reversed for a hearing in order to afford petitioner an opportunity to prove his allegations with regard to another constitutional claim—that he was deprived of due process by the refusal of the trial judge to grant his motion for a continuance in order that he might have the assistance of the counsel he had retained in the proceeding against him.8
In Chandler v. Fretag,9 we made it emphatically clear that a person proceeded against as a multiple offender has a constitutional right to the assistance of his own counsel in that proceeding. Under the facts of this case, as alleged in the petition filed before the Florida Supreme Court, the decision in Chandler is squarely in point and controlling. Under those facts, the statement of this Court in Powell v. State of Alabama,10 which provided the basis of our holding in Chandler,11 is wholly applicable: 'If in any case, civil or criminal, a state or federal court were arbitrarily to refuse to hear a party by counsel, employed by and appearing for him, it reasonably may not be
Page 531
doubted that such a refusal would be a denial of a hearing, and, therefore, of due process in the constitutional sense.'
The State seeks to avoid the application of the holding in Chandler on the basis of a contention...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hill v. Hartley, No. CIV S-08-1206 GGH P.
...In Oyler v. Boles, 368 U.S. 448, 82 S.Ct. 501, 7 L.Ed.2d 446 (1962), the Court, citing Chewning, Chandler and Reynolds v. Cochran, 365 U.S. 525, 81 S.Ct. 723, 5 L.Ed.2d 754 (1961), stated that "[a]lthough these cases were specifically concerned with the right to assistance of counsel, it wo......
-
United States v. WARRANT AUTHORIZING, ETC., No. M81-18.
...to confer with one's lawyer. Geders v. United States, 425 U.S. 80 96 S.Ct. 1330, 47 L.Ed.2d 592 (1976). See also Reynolds v. Cochran, 365 U.S. 525, 531 81 S.Ct. 723, 726, 5 L.Ed.2d 754 (1961); Hawk v. Olson, 326 U.S. 271, 278 66 S.Ct. 116, 120, 90 L.Ed. 61 (1945); Avery v. Alabama, 308 U.S.......
-
Hendrix v. City of Seattle, No. 1
...334 U.S. 736, 68 S.Ct. 1252, 92 L.Ed. 1690 (1948); Hawk v. Olson, 326 U.S. 271, 66 S.Ct. 116, 90 L.Ed. 61 (1945); Reynolds v. Cochran, 365 U.S. 525, 81 S.Ct. 723, 5 L.Ed.2d 754 (1961); Gibbs v. Burke, 337 U.S. 773, 69 S.Ct. 1247, 93 L.Ed. 1686 10. Plea of guilty by codefendant within the he......
-
McCoy Farms, Inc. v. J & M McKee, No. 77-201
...were not even afforded a legitimate hearing. In other words, the proceedings below were a mere formality. In Reynolds v. Cochran, 365 U.S. 525, 81 S.Ct. 723, 5 L.Ed.2d 754, which involved a habeas corpus proceeding, the trial court proceeded with the hearing in the absence of petitioner's r......
-
Hill v. Hartley, No. CIV S-08-1206 GGH P.
...In Oyler v. Boles, 368 U.S. 448, 82 S.Ct. 501, 7 L.Ed.2d 446 (1962), the Court, citing Chewning, Chandler and Reynolds v. Cochran, 365 U.S. 525, 81 S.Ct. 723, 5 L.Ed.2d 754 (1961), stated that "[a]lthough these cases were specifically concerned with the right to assistance of counsel, it wo......
-
Gill v. Ayers, No. 01-55808.
...In Oyler v. Boles, 368 U.S. 448, 82 S.Ct. 501, 7 L.Ed.2d 446 (1962), the Court, citing Chewning, Chandler and Reynolds v. Cochran, 365 U.S. 525, 81 S.Ct. 723, 5 L.Ed.2d 754 Page 685 stated that "[a]lthough these cases were specifically concerned with the right to assistance of counsel, it w......
-
Chambers v. Maroney, No. 830
...62 S.Ct. 457, 467, 86 L.Ed. 680 (1942); cf. White v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 59, 83 S.Ct. 1050, 10 L.Ed.2d 193 (1963); Reynolds v. Cochran, 365 U.S. 525, 530—533, 81 S.Ct. 723, 726—727, 5 L.Ed.2d 754 (1961). Further inquiry might show, of course, that counsel's opportunity for preparation was ad......
-
United States v. WARRANT AUTHORIZING, ETC., No. M81-18.
...to confer with one's lawyer. Geders v. United States, 425 U.S. 80 96 S.Ct. 1330, 47 L.Ed.2d 592 (1976). See also Reynolds v. Cochran, 365 U.S. 525, 531 81 S.Ct. 723, 726, 5 L.Ed.2d 754 (1961); Hawk v. Olson, 326 U.S. 271, 278 66 S.Ct. 116, 120, 90 L.Ed. 61 (1945); Avery v. Alabama, 308 U.S.......