Steed v. Salisbury
| Decision Date | 13 April 1972 |
| Docket Number | No. 71-1838.,71-1838. |
| Citation | 459 F.2d 475 |
| Parties | Chester T. STEED, Petitioner-Appellant, v. William D. SALISBURY, Superintendent, Chillicothe Correctional Institute, Respondent-Appellee. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit |
J. Jeffrey McNealey (Court appointed), Columbus, Ohio, for petitioner-appellant; Porter, Stanley, Treffinger & Platt, Columbus, Ohio, on brief.
Jeffrey L. McClelland, Columbus, Ohio, for respondent-appellee; William J. Brown, Atty. Gen. of Ohio, Leo J. Conway, Asst. Atty. Gen., Columbus, Ohio, on brief.
Before EDWARDS and PECK, Circuit Judges, and McALLISTER, Senior Circuit Judge.
This case arises from the denial of the appellant's petition for a writ of habeas corpus in which he alleged that he had been denied due process by the failure of his court-appointed counsel to appeal his conviction. The appellant was convicted in the Common Pleas Court of Muskingum County, Ohio, of rape and sodomy, and was sentenced to the Ohio Penitentiary. No appeal as of right was taken from this conviction. The appellant's petition to vacate his sentence and judgment of conviction in the trial court was denied, as was his subsequent motion for a delayed appeal. No appeals were taken from the denials of these motions.
The appellant then filed his petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, in which he alleged for the first time that he had been denied the effective assistance of counsel and that he had been denied his right to an appeal by the uncommunicated withdrawal of his appointed counsel from the case immediately after trial. The District Court held an evidentiary hearing, and found, among other things, that the appellant had exhausted his state court remedies, as required by 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b), and that the failure of his appointed counsel to notify the appellant of his intention to withdraw from the case did not deny him the effective assistance of counsel. The appellant's petition was denied, and this appeal perfected.
Although we recognize that the appellant's contention raises a serious federal Constitutional question1, we are unable to reach the issue because we find that the appellant has failed to exhaust his available state court remedies on this question. Armstrong v. Haskins, 363 F.2d 429 (6th Cir. 1966). The District Court found that "the issues presented to this Court have not been raised in the state courts," but determined that resort to the state courts would be futile and therefore unnecessary under the rule of Woodards v. Cardwell, 430 F.2d 978 (6th Cir. 1970). We do not think that Woodards is applicable to this case.
In Woodwards, after an appeal on the original issues had been exhausted in all state appellate courts and the Supreme Court of the United States, the issue of Witherspoon v. Illinois, 391 U.S. 510, 88 S.Ct. 1770, 20 L.Ed.2d 776 (1968), was raised for the first time. This Court held that an appeal to the Supreme Court of Ohio would have been ineffective to protect the rights of the prisoner in light of the decision of that court in State v. Duling, 21 Ohio St.2d 13, 254 N.E.2d 670 (1970), wherein the court had held that the failure to raise the Witherspoon issue constituted a waiver thereof.
Unlike the Witherspoon issue, the Ohio courts do not construe a failure to raise the issue of the ineffective assistance of counsel as a waiver, and this issue is cognizable under the Ohio Post Conviction Act, Section 2953.21 et seq. O.R.C. Dayton v. Hill, 21 Ohio St.2d 125, 256 N.E.2d 194 (1970), State v. Juliano, 24 Ohio St.2d 117, 265 N.E.2d 290 (1970). The Ohio statute provides that these questions may be presented to the court which imposed sentence "at any time."
The appellant had and has the right to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Reams v. Berry
...to petitioner, "despite the fact that his conviction was upon a guilty plea." Burrows, supra, 545 F.2d at 553. See also, Steed v. Salisbury, 459 F.2d 475 (6th Cir. 1972); State v. Hester, supra; State v. Mishelek, 42 Ohio St.2d 140, 326 N.E.2d 659 (1975); and State v. Milanovich, 42 Ohio St......
-
King v. Perini
...state remedies with respect to that constitutional claim. See, Juliano v. Cardwell, 423 F.2d 1051 (6th Cir. 1970); Steed v. Salisburg, 459 F.2d 475, 476 (6th Cir. 1972). The Court dismisses that claim because of King's lack of exhaustion of his available post-conviction remedies under Ohio ......
-
Welch v. Brown, C-3-81-205.
...See, e.g., Saylor v. Overberg, 608 F.2d 670 (6th Cir. 1979); Esherick v. Perini, 475 F.2d 577, 578 (6th Cir. 1973); Steed v. Salisbury, 459 F.2d 475 (6th Cir. 1972); State v. Hester, 45 Ohio St.2d 71, 341 N.E.2d 304 (1976). Moreover, although petitioner's not being "in custody" under the se......
-
Stone v. Ohio
...counsel. The "ineffectiveness" of Gover's appointed counsel related to the pre-appellate process. Accord Steed v. Salisbury (C.A.6, 1972), 459 F.2d 475, 65 O.O.2d 294 (attorney's failure to file timely a notice of appeal is cognizable under R.C. 2953.21). Gover's appointed attorney played n......