Ross v. Haskins

Ohio Supreme Court
Ross v. Haskins, 2 Ohio St. 2d 145 (Ohio 1965)
207 N.E.2d 246; 31 Ohio Op. 2d 237; 1965 Ohio LEXIS 507
Brown, Herbert, Matthias, Neill, Schneider, Taet, Zlmmerman

Ross v. Haskins

Opinion of the Court

Per Curiam.

Petitioner bases his right to release on an alleged deprivation of his constitutional right to the assistance of counsel. Petitioner states that he was not offered counsel, was not told of his right to counsel and did not waive counsel.

The trial judge appeared as a witness at the hearing, and his testimony fully corroborates petitioner’s contention.

The petitioner testified that he was not aware of his right to have counsel appointed.

Thus, under the doctrine of Carnley v. Cochran, Dir., 369 U. S. 506, and Gideon v. Wainwright, Dir., 372 U. S. 335, petitioner is entitled to release.

Petitioner released from custody.

TaET, O. J., ZlMMERMAN, MATTHIAS, 0’NEILL, HERBERT, Schneider and Brown, JJ., concur.

Reference

Full Case Name
Ross v. Haskins, Supt., London Correctional Institution
Cited By
5 cases
Status
Published