Supreme Court

Decision Information

Decision Content

304 [242 JOHN BARGER v. STATE OF ARKANSAS 5240 413 S. W. 2d 54 Opinion delivered April 3, 1967 HABEAS CO RPUS-PROCEEDINGS & REL IEF-SENTENCE & COMMITMENT WITHOUT ASSISTANCE OF co lmsEL.—Petitioner's writ of habeas corpus should have been granted and the Pulaski Circuit Court convictions set aside where record of the proceedings indicated petitioner had been sentenced and committed on criminal charges without assistance of counsel, without having been advised of his constitutional right to counsel, and without having waived the right. Appeal from Pulaski Circuit Court, First Division, Wm. J. Kirby, Judge ; reversed. Gerald . T. Ridgeway, for appellant. -Joe-Purce/1,-Arbtorney-General,-.Don=Langton-Asst. Atty. General, for appellee. CONLEY BYRD, Justice. This habeas corpus petitioner, John Barger, alleges that his constitutional right to the assistance of counsel was violated in that he was arrested in Pulaski County, Arkansas, in July, 1963; that he entered a plea of not guilty in the Pulaski Circuit Court on September 4, 1963, when his case was passed with his consent to the September, 1963, term (which began on the fourth Monday of September) ; that no action was taken in the September, 1963, term nor in the March, 1964, term; and that on February 1, 1965, (a day of the September, 1964, term), he entered a plea of guilty to three charges of forgery and received a ten-year sentence on each chargeall without the assistance of counsel. The state admits that petitioner was not represented by counsel and it does not contend that he was advised of his right to the assistance of counsel. In McIntyre v. State 242 Ark. 229, 412 S. W. 2d 826, we held that under these circumstances the petitioner had not waived his consitutional right to the assistance
Aux.] 305 of counsel. Therefore, we hold that petitioner's writ of habeas corpus should have been granted and his Pulaski Circuit Court 'convictions set aside. Reversed and remanded.
 You are being directed to the most recent version of the statute which may not be the version considered at the time of the judgment.