DENNETT
v.
HOGAN, WARDEN
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
A disbarred attorney convicted of securities fraud was denied appointed counsel on appeal when a Court of Appeals judge, apparently unaware of his earlier request for counsel and financial affidavit, dismissed his appeal for failure to timely submit his brief. The Supreme Court vacated the judgment and remanded the case to the Court of Appeals, finding that the defendant had a clear statutory right to appointed counsel under 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(c) and that the lower court's dismissal may have been improper given the judge's apparent lack of awareness of the defendant's initial request and indigency showing.
[1] A defendant who qualifies as indigent is entitled to appointed counsel at every stage of the proceedings, including appeal.
[2] A court may grant a writ of certiorari to review a dismissal of an appeal that may have been improvidently granted.
Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Per Curiam.
The petitioner is a disbarred attorney convicted of security fraud. At his trial the court appointed advisory counsel for him, finding that he qualified as an indigent. He was convieted. He later filed with a judge of the Court of Appeals a pro se request for extension of time in which to submit his brief on appeal. This was granted. But an accompanying inquiry concerning appointment of counsel to handle the appeal was ignored. His right to have appointed counsel here is clear. 18 U. S. C. § 3006A (c);* cf. Douglas v. California, 372 U. S. 353 (1963). Subsequently the petitioner requested another extension of time and renewed his request for appointed counsel. The Government opposed both motions; they were denied and the appeal was dismissed. The petitioner, still acting pro se, then brought this application for habeas corpus to this Court.
In his response to the application the Solicitor General informed the Court that it appeared that the judge below was unaware of the petitioner’s initial request for counsel, and mistakenly believed that the petitioner had never filed a financial affidavit with the trial court. The Solicitor General therefore suggested that this Court should treat the application as a petition for certiorari, and grant certiorari and remand the case to the Court of Appeals for determination of whether the petitioner’s appeal had been improvidently dismissed.
On examination of the record, we follow the suggestion of the Solicitor General, grant certiorari, vacate the judgment of the Court of Appeals, and remand the case to that court.
So ordered.
Mr. Justice Rehnquist dissents.
*
Section 3006A (c) reads in part as follows: “A person for whom counsel is appointed shall be represented at every stage of the proceedings from his initial appearance before the United States magistrate or the court through appeal.”
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
United States v. Scully, 546 F.2d 255 (9th Cir. 1976)…820, 40 L.Ed.2d 341; United States v. Chun, supra at 542, and it also must be determined whether the purpose which the procedure was designed to accomplish has been satisfied in spite of the error. United States v. Chavez, supra, 416 U.S. at 573-74, 94 S.Ct. 18-49, 40 L.Ed.2d 380; United States v. Giordano, supra, 416 U.S. at 524-29, 94 S.Ct. 1849, 40 L.Ed.2d 380; United States v. Chun, supra at 542. For example, the preliminary approval of wiretap applications by the Attorney General under section 2516(1)…
-
United States v. Am. Theater Corp. & Richard Ottis Berry, 526 F.2d 48 (8th Cir. 1975)…d, we note the concern that Congress has shown indigent defendants with the passage of the Criminal Justice Act of 1964, as amended, 18 U.S.C. § 3006A, and the concern that the federal judiciary has shown these same defendants. See Dennett v. Hogan, 414 U.S. 12, 94 S.Ct. 18, 38 L.Ed.2d 13 (1973) (right of indigent defendants to appointed counsel on appeal); Roberts v. LaVallee, 389 U.S. 40, 88 S.Ct. 194, 19 L.Ed.2d 41 (1967) (right of an indigent defendant to a free transcript); Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U…
Authorities Cited
- Douglas v. California, 372 U.S. 353 (U.S. 1963)