*2 GRONER, Justice, and Chief Before ARNOLD, Associate MILLER Jus- tices. ARNOLD, Associate Justice. This is from an order of the District Court without a pellant for writ corpus. Ap- of habeas had and sentenced convicted of grand larceny plea after a guilty. corpus- His states that he coerced and intimidated plea by attorney ap- enter a to pointed by him. The to defend particular allegations petition, however, do not coercion and intimidation. In effect amount represent petitioner appointed gave him through negligence ig- such bad advice norance connection with entering his plea that cannot said represented by competent coun- sel.
There is no allegation that the court
did
select
counsej
defendant’s
with care
appellant’s
due
consti
right.
tutional
We must assume that the
appointed reputable
member of the
bar in whom had
confidence. The issue
presented
on this
prisoner may
whether a
obtain a'writ of
on the sole
that coun
properly appointed by
sel
the court to de
incompetently
him acted
fend
negli
gently during
proceedings.
is clear
competent
once
appointed
subsequent
counsel is
negli
deprive
gence does not
accused of
right under the Sixth Amendment. All
requires is
that amendment
cused
shall have the
assistance of couns
el.1
does not mean
the constitu
rights
impaired
of the defendant are
subsequent
by
prop
counsel’s
to a
appointment.
er
prosecutions,
the Assistance of
Counsel for his
all criminal
the ac-
“In
enjoy
right
defence.” U.S.Const. Amend.
VI.
em
must,
every
preserving
right
accused to
there
petitioner here
fair trial.
It has held that
a defendant’s
process clause
fore, rely upon the due
by counsel
satis
to assistance
guarantees
Constitution
the Federal
formality
appoint
fied
the mere
justify habeas
But to
him a fair trial.2
*3
attorney by
There
the
court.6
case
an extreme
ground
corpus on that
representation.7 We
must he
that
shown
.“effective”
disclosed. must
must be
are
if
construed
aware that
that word be
mock
and a
proceedings were a farce
the
3
in
sense it
follow
a broad
liberal
would
and
in
cases
justice. No doubt
corpus
that on
habeas
the
would
the defendant
representation of
careless
to review
the
trial and consider
entire
lack
attorney may
contribute
the
by his
mistakes,
alleged
object to
the
failures to
a
process
whole. But
of the
of due
so,
the
of evidence and errors
introduction
leading
factors
one of the
if
ingenuity
advice which
the
constitution
petitioner’s
violation of
to the
court,
paper during
set
en
could
down on
has
case
rights.
In such a
al
of his confinement.8 This
forced leisure
give
failing to
neglected its
necessary
ruling
would
under the
become
Supreme
attor
protection.4
prosecuting
hearing must
Court that
duty as
neys
officers of
violated
petition for
corpus
be held on a
habeas
by pro
obtaining conviction
the court
allegations
which contains
sufficient
orderly
in defiance
adminis
ceeding
regardless
improbabili
their face
justice.5
of coun
Carelessness
tration of
ty.9
ground
corpus in
for habeas
sel is not the
If relied on must
such a case.
interpretation
such an
The result of
which,
evidentiary
coupled
facts
he
prisoner
Federal
others, show violation of
Fifth
hearing after his conviction in order
air
Amendment.
charges against
his
merly represented
attorney
who for-
Supreme
jealous in
him.
has been
is well known
Court
be,
Missouri,
person
2
1945,
also Tomkins v.
“No
de-
65 S.Ct.
life,
Rives,
liberty,
370;
1939,
property,
prived
App.D.C.
2,
Bostic v.
71
* *
5,
law;
649;
process
107 F.2d
Johnson v.
out due
TJ.
United
1940,
States,
App.D.C. 400,
V.
71
S.Oonst. Amend.
110 F.2d
1923,
3
86,
Dempsey,
Columbia,
261
562: Thomas v. District
Moore v.
U.S.
265,
543;
1937,
App.D.C. 179,
67
67 L.Ed.
Powell v.
90
43 S.Ct.
F.2d 424.
1932,
45,
8
55,
Dowd,
Cir., 1941,
53
287 U.S.
S.Ct.
See Achtien v.
7
Alabama.
158,
527;
Kramer,
Mooney
989;
parte
1942,
117
Ex
77 L.Ed.
84 A.L.R.
F.2d
Holohan,
103,
862,
1935,
174,
55
122
294 U.S.
S.Ct.
61 Nev.
P.2d
v.
dis
340,
791,
406;
Sheehy,
646,
L.Ed.
98 A.L.R.
Brown
missed Kramer v.
79
316 U.S.
278,
1936,
Mississippi,
1283,
297
62
v.
U.S.
S.
S.Ct.