McDougle v. Maxwell
Ohio Supreme Court
1Per curiam
Petitioner urges his right to release on two grounds: First, that he was denied counsel at his preliminary hearing, and, second, that he is being subjected to cruel and unusual punishment.
The refusal to appoint counsel at the preliminary hearing does not infringe the constitutional rights of an accused. Such a hearing is preliminary in nature, and no rights or defenses are concluded therein. Smith v. Maxwell, Warden, 177 Ohio St., 79; United States, ex rel. Cooper, v. Reincke, 333 F. (2d), 608.
Petitioner claims also that his sentence is a cruel and unusual punishment and, therefore, forbidden…
Also in this document: Concurrence.
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Robinson v. CaliforniaSupreme Court of the United States · 1962
- Weems v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1910
- In Re KemmlerSupreme Court of the United States · 1890
- Louisiana Ex Rel. Francis v. ResweberSupreme Court of the United States · 1947
- Wilkerson v. UtahSupreme Court of the United States · 1879
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by149 opinions
- State v. DelvallieOhio Court of Appeals · 2022
- State v. RoeOhio Supreme Court · 1989
- State v. HairstonOhio Supreme Court · 2008
- In re C.P.Ohio Supreme Court · 2012
- State v. ChaffinOhio Supreme Court · 1972
144 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.