Court Opinion

ID: 9545087
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 17:05:38.834042+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:14:03.570835
License: Public Domain

Schroeder, J.,
concurring: I agree the decision should be reversed, but think the allegations of paragraph 10 with respect to *235the Federal Youth Correction Act sentence should be reconsidered.
The petitioner s letter which was treated as a prior motion raised a substantial question of law. Rut the trial court, contrary to Rule No. 121 (i), did not appoint counsel for the indigent petitioner to present ihis question. The petitioner was entitled under our rules to the benefit of one duly trained in the law to research this, point and have it fairly presented to tire trial court for consideration.
Here the court seeks to circumvent this nice question of law by holding the decision on the first motion is res. judicata, no appeal having been taken. It must be remembered the petitioner was not present at the hearing on the first motion and he was not represented by counsel. There is no showing in the record that he was. even informed of the cowt’s summary decision prior to the expiration of his time for appeal.
It is respectfully submitted the trial court should be ordered to reconsider paragraph 10 as well as the other matters raised in the petitioner’s second motion.