Patrick Emmett Dwyer v. E. P. Perini, Superintendent, Etc., 437 F.2d 1355 (6th Cir. 1971). · Go Syfert
Patrick Emmett Dwyer v. E. P. Perini, Superintendent, Etc., 437 F.2d 1355 (6th Cir. 1971). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
No syfertize treatment data for this case.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Patrick Emmett DWYER, Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
E. P. PERINI, Superintendent, Etc., Respondent-Appellee
20609.
Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.
Mar 8, 1971.
Published opinion
437 F.2d 1355
1971 U.S. App. LEXIS 11489
Patrick Emmett Dwyer, pro se., Paul W. Brown, Atty. Gen., James L. Hoover, Asst. Atty. Gen., Columbus, Ohio, for appellee.
Edwards, Celebrezze, Peck.
Published
PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from the United States District Court, Northern District of Ohio, of an order dismissing a petition for a writ of habeas corpus.

Appellant was convicted in Ohio of burglary and larceny. In his petition, Appellant contends that his arrest, detention, and various searches of his person, of his car and of the scene of the crime were unlawful. Further, he contends he was denied effective assistance of counsel and that the trial court judge in Ohio improperly charged the jury which convicted him.

[*1356] Each of the grounds raised by Appellant are without merit on appeal. The record discloses that Appellant was effectively represented by competent counsel and that the charge of the trial judge, insofar as error is alleged, was lawful and nonprejudicial. Under the facts of this case, the various searches of Appellant’s car and of the scene of the crime were lawful. Chambers v. Maroney, 399 U.S. 42, 46-52, 90 S.Ct. 1975, 26 L.Ed.2d 419 (1970), Harris v. United States, 390 U.S. 234, 88 S.Ct. 992, 19 L.Ed.2d 1067 (1968), Ker v. California, 374 U.S. 23, 42-43, 83 S.Ct. 1623, 10 L.Ed.2d 726 (1963). All other claims alleged by the Appellant are not of sufficient importance to have prejudiced his cause.

Upon a careful review of the entire record and upon due consideration of all of the errors alleged, we find that the errors, if any, in the Appellate's state proceedings were “harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.” Chapman v. United States, 386 U.S. 18, 87 S.Ct. 824, 17 L.Ed.2d 705 (1967).

Affirmed.