Per Curiam.
In this action, petitioner contends that he did not know that the state would appoint counsel to act on his behalf, and that his right to counsel was not explained to him by the court until after he had signed the above-named waivers. The court's records refute this contention of petitioner. In a journal entry specifically drawn in relation to petitioner's case it is stated:
"On the 21st day of November, 1963, the defendant appeared in open...
Let's get started
Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.
- Updated daily.
- Uncompromising quality.
- Complete, Accurate, Current.