Vaughn v. Maxwell, No. 39408
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Ohio |
| Writing for the Court | PER CURIAM; TAFT |
| Citation | 209 N.E.2d 164,2 Ohio St.2d 299,31 O.O.2d 567 |
| Docket Number | No. 39408 |
| Decision Date | 23 June 1965 |
| Parties | , 31 O.O.2d 567 VAUGHN v. MAXWELL, Warden. |
Page 299
v.
MAXWELL, Warden.
[209 N.E.2d 165] This is an action in habeas corpus originating in this court. In October 1958, petitioner, James W. Vaughn, while represented by counsel, was convicted of one count of malicious entry of a financial institution and one count of armed robbery. He was sentenced to the Ohio Penitentiary.
James W. Vaughn, in pro. per.
William B. Saxbe, Atty. Gen., and William C. Baird, Columbus, for respondent.
PER CURIAM.
In this action, petitioner is attacking the validity of his indictment, the fact that he was held three days incommunicado before he was taken before a magistrate, the failure of the court to appoint counsel prior to arraignment and the competency of his counsel.
In relation to the first count charging malicious entry of a financial institution, petitioner urges that this count was void because it did not allege 'a financial institution which receives for safekeeping the moneys of public funds of individuals or corporations.' The indictment alleged 'maliciously break and enter, The Evanston Building & Loan Company.' He urges further that The Evanston Building & Loan Company is not a financial institution because it is not a member of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. Membership in this corporation is not a prerequisite to being a financial institution.
The purpose of an indictment is to inform the accused of the crime with which he is charged. Weaver v. Sacks, Warden, 173
Page 300
Ohio St. 415, 183 N.E.2d 373. It is not necessary to use the exact words of the statute.Section 2907.14, Revised Code, as in effect in 1958, read in part as follows:
'No person shall, by day or night, maliciously enter a bank or other financial institution which receives upon deposit or otherwise for safekeeping the moneys or public funds of individuals or corporations, and attempt to commit or commit a felony with firearms or other deadly weapons.'
A building and loan company receives on deposit or otherwise moneys of individuals. Thus, a building and loan company is a financial institution within the meaning of Section 2907.14, Revised Code, and inasmuch as the exact institution involved was named, petitioner was fully informed of the crime for which he was charged. Petitioner's argument in this respect is not well taken.
As to the second count, petitioner contends that the money was not taken...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Ronald E. Wright, 01-LW-4868
...(1988), 37 Ohio St. 3d 153, 524 N.E.2d 476, cert. den. (1988), 488 U.S. 975, 109 S.Ct. 515, 102 L.Ed.2d 550; Vaughn v. Maxwell (1965), 2 Ohio St.2d 299, 209 N.E.2d 164. The Sixth Amendment right to counsel protects "the fundamental right to a fair trial." Id., 466 U.S. at 684, 104 S.Ct. 205......
-
State v. Monford, No. 09AP–274.
...offenses for sentencing purposes. {¶ 78} In Ohio, a properly licensed attorney is presumed competent. Vaughn v. Maxwell (1965), 2 Ohio St.2d 299, 301, 31 O.O.2d 567, 209 N.E.2d 164. Therefore, the burden of showing ineffective assistance of counsel is on the party asserting it. State v. Smi......
-
State v. Samatar, No. 02AP-180.
...Id. at 694 [104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674]." {¶ 88} A properly licensed attorney is presumed competent. Vaughn v. Maxwell (1965), 2 Ohio St.2d 299, 301, 31 O.O.2d 567, 209 N.E.2d 164. Moreover, there is "`a strong presumption that counsel's conduct falls within the wide range of reasonable......
-
State v. Lott, No. 89-846
...competent. State v. Smith (1985), 17 Ohio St.3d 98, 100, 17 OBR 219, 221, 477 N.E.2d 1128, 1131, citing Vaughn v. Maxwell (1965), 2 Ohio St.2d 299, 301, 31 O.O.2d 567, Page 175 568, 209 N.E.2d 164, 166. "Thus, the burden of proving ineffectiveness is on the defendant." State v. Smith (1985)......
-
State v. Ronald E. Wright, 01-LW-4868
...(1988), 37 Ohio St. 3d 153, 524 N.E.2d 476, cert. den. (1988), 488 U.S. 975, 109 S.Ct. 515, 102 L.Ed.2d 550; Vaughn v. Maxwell (1965), 2 Ohio St.2d 299, 209 N.E.2d 164. The Sixth Amendment right to counsel protects "the fundamental right to a fair trial." Id., 466 U.S. at 684, 104 S.Ct. 205......
-
State v. Monford, No. 09AP–274.
...offenses for sentencing purposes. {¶ 78} In Ohio, a properly licensed attorney is presumed competent. Vaughn v. Maxwell (1965), 2 Ohio St.2d 299, 301, 31 O.O.2d 567, 209 N.E.2d 164. Therefore, the burden of showing ineffective assistance of counsel is on the party asserting it. State v. Smi......
-
State v. Samatar, No. 02AP-180.
...Id. at 694 [104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674]." {¶ 88} A properly licensed attorney is presumed competent. Vaughn v. Maxwell (1965), 2 Ohio St.2d 299, 301, 31 O.O.2d 567, 209 N.E.2d 164. Moreover, there is "`a strong presumption that counsel's conduct falls within the wide range of reasonable......
-
State v. Lott, No. 89-846
...competent. State v. Smith (1985), 17 Ohio St.3d 98, 100, 17 OBR 219, 221, 477 N.E.2d 1128, 1131, citing Vaughn v. Maxwell (1965), 2 Ohio St.2d 299, 301, 31 O.O.2d 567, Page 175 568, 209 N.E.2d 164, 166. "Thus, the burden of proving ineffectiveness is on the defendant." State v. Smith (1985)......