Larry G. Ward v. John W. Wingo, Warden, 456 F.2d 249 (6th Cir. 1972). · Go Syfert
Larry G. Ward v. John W. Wingo, Warden, 456 F.2d 249 (6th Cir. 1972). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
No syfertize treatment data for this case.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Larry G. WARD, Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
John W. WINGO, Warden, Respondent-Appellee
71-2040.
Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.
Mar 15, 1972.
Published opinion
456 F.2d 249
1972 U.S. App. LEXIS 10734
Larry G. Ward, in pro per., Ed W. Hancock, Atty. Gen., Robert W. Willmott, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., Commonwealth of Kentucky, Frankfort, Ky., on brief for respondent-appellee.
Clark, McCREE, Miller, Per Curiam.
Published
Citation check: this opinion cites a case at a citation that does not lead to it (marked in red below).
  • Townsend v. Sain is at 83 S. Ct. 745, not 88 S.Ct. 745. This copy came from Public.Resource.Org; the error may be the copy's, not the court's.
PER CURIAM.

In January 1969, appellant pleaded guilty in Kentucky Circuit Court to a charge of rape and was sentenced to life imprisonment without the privilege of parole. His motion for post-conviction relief was denied by the Kentucky Circuit Court without an evidentiary hearing, and this denial was affirmed by the Kentucky Court of Appeals. Appellant then filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the United States District Court of Kentucky pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. The petition alleged the following violations of appellant’s constitutional rights:

1) at the time of his interrogation by police officers, he was denied the assistance of counsel;
2) he was subjected to unconstitutional identification procedures and was denied the assistance of counsel during those proceedings;
3) he was denied the effective assistance of counsel prior to and upon the entry of his guilty plea.

These allegations, together with appellant’s factual assertions, raised substantial questions whether his guilty plea was a knowing, intelligent, and voluntary act. See McMann v. Richardson, 397 U.S. 759, 770-71 & n. 14, 90 S.Ct. 1441, 25 L.Ed.2d 763 (1970); Parker v. North Carolina, 397 U.S. 790, 796, 90 S. Ct. 1458, 25 L.Ed.2d 785 (1970). The District Court, however, dismissed appellant’s petition without holding an evidentiary hearing. Accordingly, at no time since appellant’s plea has he been afforded an evidentiary hearing on these questions, see Townsend v. Sain, 372 U. S. 293, 312-313, 88 S.Ct. 745[incorrect citation], 9 L.Ed.2d 770 (1963); 28 U.S.C. §§ 2243, 2254(d). In light of the foregoing, the judgment of the District Court is reversed and the case is remanded with directions to hold an evidentiary hearing for the purpose of determining the facts and disposing of the matter as law and justice require. 28 U.S.C. § 2243.