Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 13 views

    Leo Tafarella v. Tracy A. Hand, Warden, 294 F.2d 67, 10th Cir. (1961)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The petitioner appealed the dismissal of his habeas corpus petition challenging his state court conviction. The petitioner argued the state trial court lacked jurisdiction to accept his guilty plea because it failed to comply with a state statute requiring defendants be informed of their right to counsel. However, the state Supreme Court had previously ruled the trial court substantially complied with the statute. The federal appeals court is bound by the state court's interpretation of its own statute unless it violates due process. The record showed the petitioner signed a written waiver stating he was informed of his right to counsel but did not want representation. As the petitioner competently waived counsel and intelligently entered his plea, the requirements of due process were met. Therefore, the dismissal of the habeas petition was

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd

    Leo Tafarella v. Tracy A. Hand, Warden, 294 F.2d 67, 10th Cir. (1961)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    13 views2 pages
    The petitioner appealed the dismissal of his habeas corpus petition challenging his state court conviction. The petitioner argued the state trial court lacked jurisdiction to accept his guilty plea because it failed to comply with a state statute requiring defendants be informed of their right to counsel. However, the state Supreme Court had previously ruled the trial court substantially complied with the statute. The federal appeals court is bound by the state court's interpretation of its own statute unless it violates due process. The record showed the petitioner signed a written waiver stating he was informed of his right to counsel but did not want representation. As the petitioner competently waived counsel and intelligently entered his plea, the requirements of due process were met. Therefore, the dismissal of the habeas petition was

    Original Description:

    Filed: 1961-08-01 Precedential Status: Precedential Citations: 294 F.2d 67 Docket: 6660

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The petitioner appealed the dismissal of his habeas corpus petition challenging his state court conviction. The petitioner argued the state trial court lacked jurisdiction to accept his guilty plea because it failed to comply with a state statute requiring defendants be informed of their right to counsel. However, the state Supreme Court had previously ruled the trial court substantially complied with the statute. The federal appeals court is bound by the state court's interpretation of its own statute unless it violates due process. The record showed the petitioner signed a written waiver stating he was informed of his right to counsel but did not want representation. As the petitioner competently waived counsel and intelligently entered his plea, the requirements of due process were met. Therefore, the dismissal of the habeas petition was

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    13 views2 pages

    Leo Tafarella v. Tracy A. Hand, Warden, 294 F.2d 67, 10th Cir. (1961)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The petitioner appealed the dismissal of his habeas corpus petition challenging his state court conviction. The petitioner argued the state trial court lacked jurisdiction to accept his guilty plea because it failed to comply with a state statute requiring defendants be informed of their right to counsel. However, the state Supreme Court had previously ruled the trial court substantially complied with the statute. The federal appeals court is bound by the state court's interpretation of its own statute unless it violates due process. The record showed the petitioner signed a written waiver stating he was informed of his right to counsel but did not want representation. As the petitioner competently waived counsel and intelligently entered his plea, the requirements of due process were met. Therefore, the dismissal of the habeas petition was

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    of 2

    294 F.

    2d 67

    Leo TAFARELLA, Appellant,


    v.
    Tracy A. HAND, Warden, Appellee.
    No. 6660.

    United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit.


    July 10, 1961, Rehearing Denied Aug. 1, 1961.

    William M. Sims, Jr., Denver, Colo., for appellant.


    Charles N. Henson, Topeka, Kan., for appellee.
    Before MURRAH, Chief Judge, and BRATTON and BREITENSTEIN,
    Circuit judges.
    PER CURIAM.

    Petitioners is here on appeal from an order of the trial court dismissing his
    petition for a writ of habeas corpus.

    It is his contention that the Kansas state trial court was without jurisdiction to
    accept his plea of guilty for failure to comply with the requirements of
    G.S.Kansas, 1949, 62-1304, relative to an accused's right to be informed that he
    is entitled to assistance of counsel.

    Petitioner presented this identical question to the Supreme Court of Kansas in a


    habeas corpus proceeding. That court specifically held the trial court had
    substantially complied with the statutory requirements, and therefore had
    jurisdiction to accept the plea. Tafarella v. Hand, Warden, ,185 Kan. 613, 347
    P.2d 356.1

    We are bound by the Kansas court's construction of the statute unless, of


    course, it results in the denial of petitioner's right to a fair trial in accord with
    constitutional precepts of due process of law. See Devine v. Hand, Warden, 10
    Cir., 287 F.2d 687; Tibbett v. Hand, Warden, 10 Cir., 294 F.2d 68.

    The record shows, and petitioner admits, that he signed and read a written
    waiver, stating that he was informed of his right to counsel, but did not desire to
    be represented. He thus competently waived counsel and intelligently entered
    his plea-- these are the essential requirements of due process of law, as we
    understand it. The judgment of the trial court must therefore be affirmed.

    In addition to cases cited in Tafarella v. Hand, supra, construing 62-304, see


    also Devine v. Hand, 10 Cir., 287 F.2d 687; Goetz v. Hand, 10 Cir., 291 F.2d
    930, affirming Goetz v. Hand, D.C.Kan., 195 F.Supp. 194

    You might also like