Opinion ID: 1978811
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Was petitioner denied adequate representation of counsel?

Text: This issue was also raised on the first appeal, but we were not able then to dispose of it completely. See, State v. Hamilton, supra . Now that the facts have been fully developed, we agree with the postconviction court that petitioner was not denied adequate representation of counsel. After carefully reviewing the facts with reference to petitioner's claims on this issue, that court, Judge John W. Graff, said:    It is my view that petitioner had more than adequate legal representation at the hands of the public defender's office and suffered no infringement of his constitutional rights. Without restating all of these facts, it is enough to say that we agree. Affirmed. MacLAUGHLIN, J., not having been a member of this court at the time of the argument and submission, took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.