*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. 86 L.Ed. 1730. 56 682; 1941, 461, 9 Johnston, Zerbst, v. 80 L.Ed. Johnson Walker v. Ct. 312 U.S. 1019, 1938, 458, 574, 275, 287, 82 830; 304 U.S. 58 S.Ct. L. 61 85 S.Ct. L.Ed. 1461, 1942, Waley Johnston, 146 Ed. A.L.R. 101, v. 316 U.S. 1942, 4 States, 964, 104, 1302; v. Glasser 315 United 62 86 S.Ct. L.Ed. Coch 60, 457, 680; Kansas, 1942, 255, 62 S.Ct. 86 L.Ed. 256, U.S. v. 316 ran U.S. 1940, Alabama, Avery 1068, 444, 1069, v. 308 U.S. 62 S.Ct. 86 L.Ed. 1453: 446, 321, 377; Supreme 60 S.Ct. L.Ed. 84 Powell “The Kansas Court denied the 1932, Alabama, writ, stating v. 287 U.S. 45. that ‘the records of oonris 1935, Mooney 5 Holohan, v. upon 294 unsupported U.S. not set aside 791, 103, 340, Ptigant.’ 55 79 L.Ed. A. S.Ct. 98 statements of a defeated Coch 406; Mississippi, 1936, Amrine, 777, R. v. L. Brown ran v. 153 Kan. 113 P.2d 461, 278, 1048, accept U.S. 297 S.Ct. 80 56 L.Ed. 682. We con court’s 1940, Avery 6 Alabama, v. 308 showing U.S. clusion that that 377; 321, 444, represented 60 S.Ct. 84 L.Ed. Powell Cochran was Alabama, 1932, 45, throughout, revealing v. 287 U.S. 53 S.Ct. and on its face no 158, 527; 55, irregularities trial, L.Ed. 84 A.L.R. 77 John is sufficient States, 1940, App.D. unsupported v. United 71 son refutation of his 400, C. 110 F.2d 562. he was denied summon wit 7 example, in Glasser v. nesses himself.” States, 1942, 60, 76, recently U.S. 62 315 This court that “the stated 680, Supreme judge pre- L.Ed. 86 Court whom a appointment making held of an attor sented examine the record represented ney who allegations another defend whether determination its possible conflicting Huff, 1944, ant with interests Rookard v. sufficient.” representation. U.S.App.D.C. 145 effective See F.2d prosecution it. habeas correct petitions for to observe it and to drafting of many penal even of We do believe game in corpus has become subject serious of an mistakes on Convicts institutions. the ground standing perjury corpus prosecution deterrents Supreme alone. Court affect The cases where contempt and litigants. try-his granted for- has opportunity that there was no fair trial interpretation attraction lawyer its undoubted mer has many of the absence prisoner. disappointed representation. They transcript all cases written there is no surrounding im- the trial circumstances the exercise has a clear field allega- shocked the conscience realize that agination. He *4 relief farce mock- proceedings but made will be believed tions test hearing justice. by a Measured monotony offered from petition writing the trouble these well worth court is require a try the- hear- before us are insufficient to prisoner to allow a them down. To ing. his counsel effectiveness issue of the phrase is definition a liberal under dis- below open- privilege of every convict the to ing will, be missing petition accusations box of Pandora’s large penal institutions courts near to hear. compelled be GRONER, C. (concurring). J. Moreover, allegations mis- if the even shows on its that the face happen be of counsel takes on charge against assigned counsel of intimi- review them on practical to true it dation and ignorance coercion and of larger corpus except details neglect solely is based on advice picture. New trials free petitioner counsel that plead had better mistakes con- much these How counsel. guilty larceny to the lesser of grand result can never be meas- tributed ured. There are go than bery, of rob- indictment by which no because, otherwise, likely he would many errors an attor- how be determined previous found be record and batting average ney may make before given penalty. a heavier represen- low as to make becomes so unwise recom- only practical ineffective. The tation mendation, but, hand, other presence corpus is the standard very practical sound well pro- judicial character in absence and, lacking corrupt advice ceedings as whole. motive, improper enough. things, we think now will these reasons ab nature throw question. representation by light on that I am conclusive sence opinion strictly Judge the District construed. must mean therefore of lacking competence correct in representation hearing. becomes the court or the that it out