Case Resources
Search this Case
in Google Scholar
on the Web
Google Web Search
MSN Web Search
Yahoo! Web Search
in the News
Google News Search
Google News Archive Search
Yahoo! News Search
in the Blogs
BlawgSearch.com Search
Google Blog Search
Technorati Blog Search
in other Databases
Google Book Search
Justia Research Resources
Justia.com
Supreme Court Center
US Regulation Tracker
US District Court Opinions
Federal District Court Civil Case Filings
Legal Blog Search
Legal Podcast Search
USA Constitution Annotated
Online Research Resources
Cornell LII
Cornell Wex Dictionary & Encyclopedia
LLRX.com - Legal Research
Expert Witness Directory
Nolo Consumer & Business
US Court Forms
WashLaw Directory
World LII
Cases Provided By
Creative Commons
public.resource.org
Brent Kurt Duennebeil, Petitioner, Appellee, v. John W. Turner, Warden, Utah State Prison, Respondent-appellant
United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit. - 425 F.2d 1207
April 28, 1970
David S. Young, Salt Lake City, Utah (Vernon B. Romney, Atty. Gen., Lauren N. Beasley, Chief Asst. Atty. Gen., Salt Lake City, Utah, on the brief), for appellant.
H. T. Benson, Salt Lake City, Utah (Robert D. Merrill, Salt Lake City, Utah, on the brief), for appellee.
Before PICKETT, Senior Circuit Judge, and LEWIS and HICKEY, Circuit Judges.
HICKEY, Circuit Judge.
This appeal by Turner, the Warden of the Utah State Penitentiary, is from a writ of habeas corpus granted Duennebeil, a prisoner who had been on remandatory release from the prison.
The issue presented in this case is directed to the lawfulness of a post-revocation hearing in which the parolee admits a parole violation but is not afforded appointed counsel.
This case differs from Alverez v. Turner, 422 F.2d 214 (10th Cir. 1970) in that the trial court released Duennebeil on a writ after an initial show cause hearing without a reference of the matter to the state board of pardons for reconsideration.
Duennebeil relies upon Earnest v. Willingham, 406 F.2d 681 (10th Cir. 1969) recognized in Alverez, supra.
Warden Turner relies upon Cotner v. United States, 409 F.2d 853 (10th Cir. 1969).
This court recently considered both Willingham, supra, and Cotner, supra, and concluded: "The limits of the decision in Earnest v. Willingham were carefully set out in Cotner v. United States, * * * wherein we held that the mandatory releasee is not entitled to appointed counsel when the factual issues relating to whether or not he violated the conditions of his release were not contested." Earnest v. Moseley, 426 F.2d 466 (10th Cir. 1970). The record in the case before us clearly indicates that Duennebeil admitted leaving the State of Utah without permission thereby admitting the factual issues of a violation of the conditions of his remandatory release.
The judgment is reversed and the appellee Duennebeil is remanded to the custody of the warden in whose charge he was when released. The mandate shall issue forthwith.