In Re Rose
California Supreme Court
1Opinion of the CourtPeters, J.
On this petition for habeas corpus petitioner contends that he was so inadequately represented at the trial court level that, in fact, he did not have any representation at all, and so was deprived of his constitutional right to counsel. (Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335 [83 S.Ct. 792, 9 L.Ed.2d 799, 93 A.L.R.2d 733].)
This ease had its inception in 1958. In that year petitioner was charged with kidnaping (Pen. Code, § 207), assault by means of force likely to produce great bodily injury (Pen. Code, § 245) and oral copulation (Pen. Code, § 288a). At all pertinent times he was represented by…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- Gideon v. WainwrightSupreme Court of the United States · 1963
- Gideon v. WainwrightSupreme Court of the United States · 1963
- Powell v. AlabamaSupreme Court of the United States · 1932
- People v. IbarraCalifornia Supreme Court · 1963
- In Re ImblerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1963
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by50 opinions
- People v. FriersonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1979
- In Re HochbergCalifornia Supreme Court · 1970
- In re LessardCalifornia Supreme Court · 1965
- In Re WilliamsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1969
- People v. HamCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1970
45 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.