Richard Lee Ingle v. Cletus J. Fitzharris, Superintendent

Appellant’s petition for habeas corpus alleged that essential elements of due process were lacking in the state prosecution leading to his conviction. The district court dismissed the petition on the ground that the state trial record conclusively demonstrated that appellant was not entitled to relief. We reverse.

1. Appellant complained that he was not accorded his due process right to an attorney’s “effective aid in the preparation and trial of the case.” Powell v. State of Alabama, 287 U.S. 45, 71 , [ 53 S.Ct. 55, 65 , 77 L.Ed. 158 ] (1932). He alleged that he had no counsel at all at trial, and that the aid tendered by appointed counsel in preparation for trial was ineffective. He charged that appointed counsel failed to seek pretrial suppression of illegally obtained evidence, to interview witnesses or arrange for their presence at trial, or to take any other steps to prepare appellant’s defense. Cf. Brubaker v. Dickson, 310 F.2d 30 , 39 n. 48 (9th Cir. 1962).

In affirming appellant’s conviction the Supreme Court of California held that the trial record conclusively demonstrated that appellant waived his right to counsel. People v. Ingle, 53 Cal.2d 407 , 2 Cal.Rptr. 14 ,…

(concurring).

I concur. Whether a waiver can be implied will turn, of course, upon the issue of whether Ingle’s objection to his appointed counsel was valid or frivolous.

It is unfortunate that the state trial judge did not resolve that issue prior to the trial, for Ingle even then had voiced vigorous general dissatisfaction with his appointed counsel. I believe — and my views find confirmation from the interesting discussion appearing in Brown v. United States, 105 U.S.App.D.C. 77 , 264 F.2d 363 (1959), cert. denied, 360 U.S. 911 , 79 S.Ct. 1299 , 3 L.Ed.2d 1262 ,— that it is better practice for trial judges to delay trials, if necessary, and properly settle such complaints immediately than to make peremptory rulings and risk new trials later.

375 F.2d 398 Richard Lee INGLE, Appellant, v. Cletus J. FITZHARRIS, Superintendent, Appellee. No. 21093. United States Court of Appeals Ninth Circuit. February 24, 1967. Richard Lee Ingle, in pro. per. Thomas C. Lynch, Atty. Gen. of Cal., Robert R. Granucci, Ronald H. Kearney, Deputy Attys. Gen., San Francisco, Cal., for appellee. Before HAMLEY, KOELSCH, and BROWNING, Circuit Judges. BROWNING, Circuit Judge: 1 Appellant's petition for habeas corpus alleged that essential elements of due process were lacking in the state prosecution leading to his conviction. The district court dismissed the petition on the ground that the state trial record conclusively demonstrated that appellant was not entitled to relief. We reverse. 2 1. Appellant complained that he was not accorded his due process right to an attorney's "effective aid in the preparation and trial of the case." Powell v. State of Alabama, 287 U.S. 45, 71 , [ 53 S.Ct. 55, 65 , 77 L.Ed. 158 ] (1932). He alleged that he had no counsel at all at trial, and that the aid tendered by appointed counsel in preparation for trial was ineffective. He charged that appointed counsel failed to seek pretrial suppression of illegally obtained…