Brooks v. State, 44226
| Citation | 473 S.W.2d 30 |
| Decision Date | 23 November 1971 |
| Docket Number | No. 44226,44226 |
| Parties | Amos Lincoln BROOKS, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee. |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Ross Teter, Dallas, for appellant.
Henry Wade, Dist. Atty., John B. Tolle, Asst. Dist. Atty., Dallas, and Jim D. Vollers, State's Atty., Austin, for the State.
This is an appeal from a conviction for unlawful possession of heroin. Trial was before a jury with punishment set by the jury at life imprisonment.
Appellant asserts, by his first two grounds of error, that the trial court improperly refused his bills of exception. He contends that the court took no action regarding the bills until after the one-hundred day time limit prescribed in Art. 40.09(6)(a), Vernon's Ann.C.C.P. as amended, had expired, and therefore, they were deemed approved by the operation of law. The record, however, indicates that the bills Were refused within the required time. Appellant contends that the trial court back-dated its endorsement refusing the bills.
It is elementary that a mere statement in an appellant's brief is not sufficient to impeach the record. See, Anderson v. State, 445 S.W.2d 752 (Tex.Cr.App.1969); Robertson v. State, 168 Tex.Cr.R. 35, 322 S.W.2d 620 (Tex.Cr.App. 1959); Lucas v. State, 216 S.W.2d 820 (Tex.Cr.App.1949). No bystanders' bill appears in the record. Therefore, the bills are not before us for review.
Appellant complains by his seven remaining grounds of error that he was 'denied a fair trial with the effective assistance of counsel.' In each ground he lists some act or omission by his trial counsel as evidence in support of contention.
The measure for determining whether a defendant was denied the effective assistance of counsel at trial is whether representation by counsel was so inadequate as to make the trial a farce and a mockery of justice. Foster v. Beto, 412 F.2d 892 (5th Cir. 1969); Campbell v. United States,401 F.2d 894 (5th Cir. 1968); Williams v. Beto, 354 F.2d 698 (5th Cir. 1965); Meeks v. State, 456 S.W.2d 938 (Tex.Cr.App.1970); Washington v. State, 450 S.W.2d 630 (Tex.Cr.App.1970). Applying this test to the instant case, we do not find that appellant was denied the effective assistance of counsel.
That appellant's counsel on appeal would have conducted the trial in a different manner does not mean that the trial counsel was ineffective. As was so aptly stated by the United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Vasquez v. State
...892 (5th Cir. 1969); Campbell v. United States, 401 F.2d 894 (5th Cir. 1968); Williams v. Beto, 354 F.2d 698 (5th Cir. 1965); Brooks v. State, 473 S.W.2d 30 (Tex.Cr.App., delivered November 23, 1971); Meeks v. State, 456 S.W.2d 938 (Tex.Cr.App.1970). Appellant contends that the evidence is ......
-
Hafdahl v. State
...after his motion for new trial was overruled by operation of law. That "bill" is not properly before this Court. See Brooks v. State, 473 S.W.2d 30, 30-31 (Tex.Cr.App.1971).3 Brady and its progeny do not require prosecuting authorities to disclose exculpatory information to defendants that ......
-
Ex parte Gallegos
...upon Williams v. Beto, 354 F.2d 698 (5th Cir. 1965). See Ex parte Love, 468 S.W.2d 836 (Tex.Cr.App.1971), and Brooks v. State, 473 S.W.2d 30, 31 (Tex.Cr.App.1971), which cites several Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals opinions in support thereof. There is another line of cases which seems to c......
-
Johnson v. State, 44648
...Cir. 1969); Campbell v. United States, 401 F.2d 894 (5th Cir. 1968); Williams v. Beto, 354 F.2d 698 (5th Cir. 1965); Brooks v. State, 473 S.W.2d 30 (Tex.Cr.App.1971); Meeks v. State, 456 S.W.2d 938 (Tex.Cr.App.1970); Washington v. State, 450 S.W.2d 630 In light of the entire record includin......