Application of Wright
South Dakota Supreme Court
1Opinion of the Court
RENTTO, Presiding Judge.
The issue raised by this habeas corpus proceeding is whether an indigent is entitled to appointment of counsel at public expense when charged in a police magistrate’s court with the violation of a town ordinance proscribing public intoxication. We hold he is not; ....
While the jailer having the applicant in custody produced him at the hearing on the writ, he did not make a return to it nor did he appear either in person or by counsel. The testimony of the applicant was the only evidence submitted. He was represented by counsel from the Legal Services office at Rosebud,…
2Cases cited28 opinions
- Johnson v. ZerbstSupreme Court of the United States · 1938
- Gideon v. WainwrightSupreme Court of the United States · 1963
- Gideon v. WainwrightSupreme Court of the United States · 1963
- In Re GAULTSupreme Court of the United States · 1967
- Griffin v. IllinoisSupreme Court of the United States · 1956
23 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- City of Sioux Falls v. BohnerSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1972
- In re WrightSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1972
- City of Sioux Falls v. BohnerSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1972
- Parham v. Municipal Court, City of Sioux FallsSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1972
- Parham v. Municipal Court, City of Sioux FallsSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1972