State ex rel. Fisher v. Bomar
| Decision Date | 08 March 1957 |
| Citation | 201 Tenn. 579,300 S.W.2d 927,5 McCanless 579 |
| Parties | , 201 Tenn. 579 STATE ex rel. Carl Gene FISHER v. Lynn BOMAR, Warden. |
| Court | Tennessee Supreme Court |
Herbert R. Rich and Herman O. Loewenstein, Nashville, for plaintiff in error.
Nat Tipton, Advocate General, Nashville, for defendant in error.
This is a habeas corpus proceedings in which the relator Carl Gene Fisher, a prisoner in the State Penitentiary, seeks his release on the ground that in the trial of his case in Knoxville, upon the charge of a crime against nature, he did not have an attorney to prepare and file a bill of exceptions for him.
The trial court appointed two attorneys to represent him and after conviction, his attorneys made a motion for a new trial which was overruled.
The relator solicited his attorneys to file a bill of exceptions for him. They told him that it would cost approximately $150 to prepare such bill of exceptions. Later, with the consent of the trial court, his attorneys withdrew from the case.
Relator claims that he wrote several letters to the trial judge seeking an appointment of an attorney to file a bill of exceptions for him. After the time for filing the bill of exceptions expired, relator apparently wrote to the court to appoint an attorney for him. This court appointed Honorable Roy N. Stansberry of the Knoxville Bar, who presented the case here upon the theory that the indictment charged no offense under the law. This contention was rejected in an opinion found in Fisher v. State, 197 Tenn. 594, 277 S.W.2d 340.
The petition in this case is filed upon the idea that the relator had the right to have an attorney to prepare his bill of exceptions and prosecute his appeal in this Court.
We are of the opinion that neither the Constitution nor the statutes of this State require that the trial judge appoint an attorney to prepare a bill of exceptions and prosecute an appeal here.
In Vowell v. State, 132 Tenn. 349, 178 S.W. 768, 771, it was held that Section IX, Article I of the Constitution is applicable only to trial courts.
The Court in that case said:
'All of these provisions applying incontestably, as they do, to the trial court only, it would seem that the only remaining one must have the same construction, that is, the right of the accused to be heard by himself and counsel.'
We are therefore of the opinion that the accused has no constitutional right where convicted of a crime to be represented by a counsel on appeal.
We...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Brown
...Kindelan, 80 R.I. 212, 217-218, 95 A.2d 51, certiorari denied, 345 U.S. 1000, 73 S.Ct. 1146, 1406; Tennessee: State ex rel. Fisher v. Bomar, 201 Tenn. 579, 581, 300 S.W.2d 927; Texas: Spalding v. State, 137 Tex.Cr. 329, 334, 127 S.W.2d 457; cf. State v. Singletary, 187 S.C. 19, 28, 196 S.E.......
-
People v. Breslin
...A.2d 549, certiorari denied 345 U.S. 937, 73 S.Ct. 799, 97 L.Ed. 1364; State v. Lorenz, 235 Minn. 221, 50 N.W.2d 270; State ex rel. Fisher v. Bomar, Tenn., 300 S.W.2d 927; Savage v. State, 155 Tex.Cr.R. 576, 237 S.W.2d 315. A like result has been reached by courts considering the question a......
-
People v. Teams
...237 N.Y.S.2d 567 ... 38 Misc.2d 328 ... The PEOPLE of the State of New York ... James TEAMS ... Supreme Court, Kings County, Criminal ... 1364; State v. Lorenz, 235 Minn. 221, 50 N.W.2d 270; State ex rel. Fisher v. Bomar, Tenn., [201 Tenn ... 579, 300 S.W.2d 927]; Savage v ... ...