Barker v. Ohio
6th Cir.
Citation analytics
How this case sits in the citation network, derived from CiteLaw's graph of published opinions.
Citations by decade
Courts citing this case
Most recently cited by10
- 2025Anderson v. State of Tennessee E.D. Tenn.
- 2025Theriot 423068 v. Bonn W.D. Mich.
- 2024Sifuentes v. Prelesnik W.D. Mich.
- 2024Johnson 229891 v. Miniard W.D. Mich.
- 2024Taylor 408375 v. Huss W.D. Mich.
- 2024Hollingsworth v. Phillips E.D. Tenn.
- 2023Riesqo Penate v. Garland W.D. Mich.
- 2023Edmond 538334 v. Rewerts W.D. Mich.
- 2023Mott 193734 v. Rewerts W.D. Mich.
- 2023Cunningham 976678 v. Burgess W.D. Mich.
Cites 12 casesshowing 8
- Collins v. Heinze
- Graeber v. Schneckloth
- Jackson v. Steiner
- Gilpin v. United States
- McCartney v. United States
- United States ex rel. Burage v. Pate
- Barker v. Ohio
- Hodge v. Huff
Counts reflect decisions in the CiteLaw corpus and may lag very recent opinions.
Opinion
Edward BARKER, Appellant, v. The STATE OF OHIO, Appellee.
Attorneys
- Louis Stokes, Cleveland, Ohio, for appellant.
- William B. Saxbe, Atty. Gen. of Ohio, John Cianflona, William C. Baird, Asst. Attys. Gen. of Ohio, Columbus, Ohio, for appellee.
On March 9, 1964, 6 Cir., 328 F.2d 582, we affirmed the judgment of the District Court dismissing appellant’s petition for writ of habeas corpus, stating the reasons therefor in an opinion handed down at the same time.
Appellant’s present petition for rehearing presents a new contention that he was not granted a hearing in the District Court and was not represented by counsel in that Court.
The issue raised by the petition for habeas corpus was purely a legal one. No hearing was required. United States, ex rel. Burage v. Pate, 316 F.2d 582, C.A.7th; Jackson v. Steiner, 261 F.2d 447, 448, C.A.4th; Hodge v. Huff, 78 U.S.App.D.C. 329, 140 F.2d 686, 689, cert. denied, 322 U.S. 733, 64 S.Ct. 946, 88 L.Ed. 1567.
The orders herein appealed from were entered on December 26, 1962, and February 13, 1963. The record contains a letter dated November 30, 1962, to the District Judge from a Cleveland attorney stating in part, “Please be advised that I will represent the above captioned petitioner in his hearing on Writ of Habeas Corpus filed in your court.” The record does not show that he thereafter withdrew from the case. In fact, said attorney appeared for the petitioner in this appeal and made oral argument on his behalf.
In addition, it has been many times held that the constitutional right to counsel in criminal prosecutions provided by the Sixth Amendment does not apply to an application for a writ of habeas corpus, which is a civil proceeding. Collins v. Heinze, 217 F.2d 62, C.A.9th, cert denied, 349 U.S. 940, 75 S.Ct. 786, 99 L.Ed. 1268; Dorsey v. Gill, 80 U.S.App.D.C. 9, 148 F.2d 857, 877, cert. denied, 325 U.S. 890, 65 S.Ct. 1580, 89 L.Ed. 2003; Graeber v. Schneckloth, 241 F.2d 710, C.A.9th; Stidham v. United States, 170 F.2d 294, 297, C.A. 8th. See also: Gilpin v. United States, 265 F.2d 203, 204, C.A.6th; McCartney v. United States, 311 F.2d 475, C.A.7th, cert. denied, 374 U.S. 848, 83 S.Ct. 1910, 10 L.Ed.2d 1068; Crowe v. United States, 175 F.2d 799, 801, C.A.4th, cert. denied, 338 U.S. 950, 70 S.Ct. 478, 94 L.Ed. 586, rehearing denied, 339 U.S. 916, 70 S.Ct. 559, 94 L.Ed. 1341; Richardson v. United States, 199 F.2d 333, 335, C.A.10th.
Appellant’s petition for rehearing is denied.