From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Doughty v. Maxwell

U.S.
Feb 24, 1964
376 U.S. 202 (1964)

Summary

holding the right to assistance of counsel as announced in Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335, 83 S.Ct. 792, 9 L.Ed.2d 799, to be retroactive

Summary of this case from Schlomann v. Moseley

Opinion

ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO.

No. 422, Misc.

Decided February 24, 1964.

Certiorari granted and judgment reversed.

Reported below: 175 Ohio St. 46, 191 N.E.2d 727.

Petitioner pro se.

William B. Saxbe, Attorney General of Ohio, and William C. Baird, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.


The motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and the petition for writ of certiorari are granted. The judgment is reversed. Carnley v. Cochran, 369 U.S. 506, Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335.


Summaries of

Doughty v. Maxwell

U.S.
Feb 24, 1964
376 U.S. 202 (1964)

holding the right to assistance of counsel as announced in Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335, 83 S.Ct. 792, 9 L.Ed.2d 799, to be retroactive

Summary of this case from Schlomann v. Moseley

giving retroactivity to Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335, 83 S.Ct. 792, 9 L.Ed.2d 799

Summary of this case from United States v. Scott

In Doughty v. Maxwell, 1964, 376 U.S. 202, 84 S.Ct. 702, 11 L.Ed.2d 650, in a short per curiam opinion the Supreme Court reversed a state court conviction where the accused had failed to request counsel when pleading guilty; Doughty was convicted two years before Gideon's 1961 conviction.

Summary of this case from Pate v. Holman

In Doughty v. Maxwell, 376 U.S. 202, 84 S.Ct. 702, 11 L.Ed.2d 650 (1964), the Supreme Court in a per curiam decision reversed an Ohio Supreme Court decision denying petitioner relief where he was convicted on a guilty plea and did not make an affirmative request for counsel. Lower federal courts voicing opinion on this issue have held that there can be no valid distinction between the accused who pleads guilty and the one who pleads not guilty insofar as his right to counsel is concerned.

Summary of this case from Bird v. Sigler
Case details for

Doughty v. Maxwell

Case Details

Full title:DOUGHTY v . MAXWELL, WARDEN

Court:U.S.

Date published: Feb 24, 1964

Citations

376 U.S. 202 (1964)

Citing Cases

Janiec v. State

(at p. 308) (Emphasis added) Doughty v. Maxwell, 376 U.S. 202, 84 S.Ct. 702, 11 L.Ed.2d 650 (1964), dealt…

United States v. LaVallee

Simply stated, we are convinced that Gideon's requirement of court-appointed counsel cannot be limited to…