Legal Opinion

Pearl v. State

Wyoming Supreme Court

Decided February 17, 2000No. 98-80PublishedCited by 12 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

LEHMAN, Chief Justice.

Relying on W.R.Cr.P. 44(a)(2), the district court refused to appoint counsel at appellant’s probation revocation hearing. Because we hold that appointed counsel is constitutionally required under Wyoming’s judicial probation revocation procedure, we reverse.

ISSUE

Appellant, Jason Pearl, presents one issue for review, an issue upon which we requested and received supplemental briefing:

Was the Appellant denied his Fourteenth Amendment right to due process and his Sixth Amendment right to counsel when the trial court failed to appoint counsel to represent the Appellant at…

2Cases cited16 opinions

  1. Morrissey v. BrewerSupreme Court of the United States · 1972
  2. Gideon v. WainwrightSupreme Court of the United States · 1963
  3. Gagnon v. ScarpelliSupreme Court of the United States · 1973
  4. Mempa v. RhaySupreme Court of the United States · 1967
  5. Black v. RomanoSupreme Court of the United States · 1985

11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by12 opinions

  1. Peters v. StateSupreme Court of Florida · 2008
  2. Patrick v. StateWyoming Supreme Court · 2005
  3. Daugherty v. StateWyoming Supreme Court · 2002
  4. Mogard v. City of LaramieWyoming Supreme Court · 2001
  5. Anderson v. StateWyoming Supreme Court · 2002

7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API