207 N.E.2d 374
No. 39327Supreme Court of Ohio.
Decided May 12, 1965
Habeas corpus — Not available as substitute for adequate remedy by appeal — Representation by competent counsel.
IN HABEAS CORPUS.
This is an action in habeas corpus originating in this court. On March 19, 1964, the Grand Jury of Lorain County returned an indictment charging petitioner, General Brown, with murder in the first degree. Petitioner was arraigned on March 24, 1964, and pleaded not guilty. On June 29, 1964, petitioner appeared in open court accompanied by his attorney, waived a trial by jury, withdrew his pleas of not guilty and not guilty by reason of insanity and entered a plea of guilty to murder in the second degree. After an evidentiary hearing, the court accepted such plea and sentenced petitioner to the penitentiary.
Mr. General Brown, in propria persona.
Mr. William B. Saxbe, attorney general, and Mr. William C. Baird, for respondent.
Per Curiam.
In this action, petitioner alleges that he was held some 16 days before he was taken before a magistrate and charged, and that all this was done without the benefit of counsel. Petitioner at no time made any statement other than to deny his guilt. Petitioner alleges that he discharged his retained counsel, and that the court refused to appoint counsel to represent him. He contends further that he pleaded guilty to second degree murder because his attorney threatened him with the electric chair if he did not. Fundamentally, he argues that his attorney did not properly represent him.
The transcript of the proceedings shows that petitioner
Page 154
was represented by retained counsel, that during the proceedings a disagreement arose between petitioner and his counsel in relation to whether the trial should be before a jury or a three-judge court, and that the attorney withdrew. The transcript in relation to this question shows also that the court did refuse to appoint counsel for petitioner on the ground that petitioner was not an indigent, and that subsequently, at the behest of petitioner’s family, his original attorney re-entered the case and represented him throughout the remainder of the proceedings. The record shows also that the court carefully instructed petitioner as to his rights, including that of a trial by jury, and did everything possible to be sure petitioner understood what he was doing.
Petitioner remanded to custody.
TAFT, C.J., ZIMMERMAN, MATTHIAS, O’NEILL, HERBERT, SCHNEIDER and BROWN, JJ., concur.
Page 155