Court Opinion

ID: 9625712
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 07:49:04.884468+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:56:14.064620
License: Public Domain

ELLETT, Justice
(concurring in the result) :
I concur in the result, not because there was any error below, but simply to avoid having the matter taken before the federal courts, where the defendant would be released. There is no federal question involved in this matter.1
Even if the provisions of the Sixth Amendment were applicable to this case, it *154should not require a release of the defendant on a habeas corpus proceeding. So far as pertinent to this matter, that Amendment states:
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right ... to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.
At the time of the adoption of this Amendment there was no right to counsel in the courts of England in felony cases. In fact, it was not until 1826, SO years after the Amendment, that a defendant charged with felony in the courts of England could be represented by counsel at trial.
It was a determination by the people of the 13 colonies to see that the new federal entity did not follow the rule of the English courts which prompted the language above quoted to be included in the Amendment.
The Amendment does not say, and it never was meant to say that a criminal must have counsel. All it ever said was that he had a right to have counsel to assist him.
In this case the defendant was never denied any right to have counsel and so I would affirm the trial court in what was done. However, I can see no harm in permitting a new sentence to be imposed upon the defendant.

. See my lonesome opinion in Dyett v. Turner, 20 Utah 2d 403, 439 P.2d 266 (1968).