Court Opinion

ID: 9849299
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 04:38:05.239631+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:19:15.792849
License: Public Domain

MOORE, Justice.
I concur in the result in the case and wish to state my reasons.
Long before the Escobedo and Miranda opinions by the Supreme Court our statutes provided for appointment of defense attorneys prior to trial and on appeal of felony cases. Code sections 775.4 and 777.12. The 61st General Assembly in 1965 enacted the public defender law which is now chapter 336A, Code, 1966. Section 336A.7 authorizes appointment of other defense counsel both for trial and on appeal but makes no such provision in habeas corpus cases. This legislation was passed subsequent to our holding in Waldon v. District Court, 256 Iowa 1311, 130 N.W.2d 728, in which we recognize habeas corpus is a civil action and there is no provision in our law for appointment of counsel in a civil action. After reviewing both state and federal constitutional rights of the petitioner, we held in Waldon the State is not constitutionally bound to furnish counsel in a habeas corpus case. Our only post conviction remedy is that provided by habeas corpus under Code chapter 663.
It is well settled there is no constitutional right to representation by counsel in ha-beas corpus proceedings in the federal courts. Anderson v. Heinze, 9 Cir., 258 F.2d 479; United States ex rel. Wissenfeld v. Wilkins, 2 Cir., 281 F.2d 707; Hampton v. State of Oklahoma, 10 Cir., 368 F.2d 9; LaClair v. United States, 7 Cir., 374 F.2d 486; Roach v. Bennett, 8 Cir., 392 F.2d 743, filed April 15, 1968. Most of these cases and also Sanders v. United States, 373 U.S. 1, 83 S.Ct. 1068, 10 L.Ed.2d 148, recognize the trial court has discretion to ascertain whether the claim is substantial before granting a full evidentiary hearing *431and the court might find it useful to appoint counsel to represent the petitioner.
In the case at bar the trial court, in line with Waldon v. District Court, supra believed appointment of counsel was not permissible under any circumstances. As pointed out in the opinion filed herein the claimed facts are very unusual and make appointment of counsel most desirable.
I would modify our Waldon case only to the extent of vesting in the trial court the discretion of appointing counsel in such a case where the facts make such appointment desirable. If additional post convictions are to be furnished it is for the legislature to so provide.
Because of the particular facts in this case I agree it should be reversed and remanded.
GARFIELD, C. J., and LARSON and SNELL, JJ., join in this special concurrence.