Calloway v. State
Decision Date | 25 September 1985 |
Docket Number | No. 668-84,668-84 |
Citation | 699 S.W.2d 824 |
Parties | Carl Lee CALLOWAY, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee. |
Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
W.E. Harper, Beaumont, for appellant.
James S. McGrath, Dist. Atty., and R.W. Fisher, Asst. Dist. Atty., Beaumont, Robert Huttash, State's Atty. and Alfred Walker, First Asst., State's Atty., Austin, for the State.
Before the court en banc.
OPINION ON STATE'S PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW
Appellant was indicted for the offense of aggravated possession of a controlled substance, namely, cocaine. 1 One prior felony conviction was alleged for enhancement of punishment. A jury found him guilty of the lesser included offense of possession of a controlled substance. 2 Upon proof of the alleged prior conviction, the judge assessed punishment at 30 years' imprisonment.
On appeal the appellant raised a number of grounds of error. His seventh ground of error read:
The trial court committed reversible error by denying the motion to withdraw as counsel for appellant made by appellant's attorney based upon a conflict of interest between appellant and a co-defendant also represented by appellant's attorney for the reason that appellant was denied his right to effective assistance of counsel guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
He cited and relied upon Holloway v. Arkansas, 435 U.S. 475, 98 S.Ct. 1173, 55 L.Ed.2d 426 (1978); Cuyler v. Sullivan, 446 U.S. 335, 100 S.Ct. 1708, 64 L.Ed.2d 333 (1980).
The Beaumont Court of Appeals sustained appellant's seventh ground of error and reversed and remanded the cause to the trial court. Calloway v. State, S.W.2d (Tex.App.-Beaumont 1984) (No. 09-83-004 CR). In considering appellant's seventh ground of error, the Court of Appeals held that the trial court, having been placed on notice that a potential conflict of interest existed, erred in its affirmative duty to hold a hearing to determine "whether the risks inherent in co-representation ... were too remote to warrant separate counsel or to see that the appellant and his co-defendant were represented by separate counsel." The Court of Appeals then applied the presumption that the alleged conflict of interest existed and that appellant was harmed.
In its petition for discretionary review, the State argues that the Court of Appeals erred in holding that the trial court neglected its affirmative duty to hold a hearing when there was an adequate hearing held during which appellant was given the opportunity but failed to show that the multiple representation would result in a conflict of interest; and that appellant failed to lodge an appropriate objection so as to entitle him to a hearing. 3
We granted the State's petition for discretionary review to determine the correctness of the Court of Appeals' disposition of appellant's seventh ground of error.
The indictment against appellant individually was presented in the 252nd District Court on May 6, 1982. It was filed and became Case No. 41389. In a letter dated July 26, 1982, appellant's counsel requested to withdraw from the case and others. The letter addressed to the district judge was received the following day. It read:
On July 27, 1982 the following motion was filed:
The motion was signed only by the attorney. On the same date the trial judge denied the motion in the order form on the prepared motion.
Appellant's case was tried on August 18, 1982. It was not a joint trial. On that date, following jury selection, the reading of the indictment, and appellant's plea of not guilty before the jury, the following exchange took place outside the presence of the jury:
The main thrust of the attorney's letter sent to the trial judge was that appellant was in jail and had no money to pay his attorney, although it concluded with a request to withdraw because of an undisclosed "conflict of interest."
The motion to withdraw stated that the appellant wanted counsel to withdraw. No mention of conflict of interest was made. The motion was not signed by the appellant.
At trial, after the indictment had been read to the jury and the appellant had entered his plea of not guilty, appellant's counsel asked to make "my bill" on the motion to withdraw. The court permitted the same. Counsel again stated there was a conflict, a serious conflict, between appellant and codefendant Bennett, who was not on trial at the time. The nature of the possible conflict was not disclosed to the court. Upon further inquiry, counsel advised the court Bennett lived out-of-state and had hired him first, and it was a hardship on Bennett to force him to withdraw as Bennett's attorney. The court noted counsel was retained in both cases and could withdraw as attorney in Bennett's case and continue to represent the appellant.
Counsel took no exception to the court's suggestion, did not call the appellant as a witness or ask to offer other evidence in connection with his "bill."
At trial the appellant did not testify or call Bennett as a witness. In fact the defense offered no evidence at all. Appellant makes no claim on appeal that the trial independently shows a conflict of interest which would have entitled him to relief even if he had made "no objection" prior to appeal.
The mere fact of joint representation will not show an actual conflict of interest. Holloway v. Arkansas, 435 U.S. 475, 482, 98 S.Ct. 1173, 1178, 55 L.Ed.2d 426 (1978), where codefendants' interests are in conflict, the joint representation of codefendants by a single attorney may deprive a codefendant of his Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel, see, e.g., Glasser v. United States, 315 U.S. 60, 62 S.Ct. 457, 86 L.Ed.2d 680 (19...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Calloway v. State
...was vacated and the cause was remanded to that court to consider appellant's remaining points (nee grounds) of error. Calloway v. State, 699 S.W.2d 824 (Tex.Cr.App.1985). On remand, the Court of Appeals rejected all other points of error and affirmed the trial court's judgment. Calloway v. ......
-
James v. State
...446 U.S. 335, 100 S.Ct. 1708, 64 L.Ed.2d 333 (1980); see also Almanzar v. State, 702 S.W.2d 653 (Tex.Cr.App.1986); Calloway v. State, 699 S.W.2d 824 (Tex.Cr.App.1985); Foster v. State, 693 S.W.2d 412 (Tex.Cr.App.1985); Ex parte Acosta, supra; Polan v. State, supra; Ex parte Parham, supra; E......
-
Perez v. State
...exists. See, e.g., Thompson v. State, 94 S.W.3d 11, 20 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2002, pet. ref'd) (citing Calloway v. State, 699 S.W.2d 824, 829–30 (Tex.Crim.App.1985)); Ramirez, 13 S.W.3d at 487. Because there was no actual conflict, the trial court was not required to hold a Garcia ......
-
Howard v. State
...not initiate an inquiry. Cuyler v. Sullivan, 446 U.S. 335, 347, 100 S.Ct. 1708, 1717-18, 64 L.Ed.2d 333 (1980); Calloway v. State, 699 S.W.2d 824, 829-30 (Tex.Crim.App.1985). The Howards acknowledge the above authority, but note that it is based on the Sixth Amendment to the United States C......
-
Right to Counsel and Effective Assistance of Counsel
...conflict of interest in a multiple representation situation, the defendant must advance a valid basis for his claim. Calloway v. State, 699 S.W.2d 824 (Tex. Crim. App. 1985). §4:65 Duty of Counsel Where the record shows that the defendants were never warned by their trial attorney or by the......
-
Right to Counsel and Effective Assistance of Counsel
...conflict of interest in a multiple representation situation, the defendant must advance a valid basis for his claim. Calloway v. State, 699 S.W.2d 824 (Tex. Crim. App. 1985). §4:65 Duty of Counsel Where the record shows that the defendants were never warned by their trial attorney or by the......
-
Table of Cases
...2001, pet. ref’d ), §4:95.8 Callaway v. State, 818 S.W.2d 816 (Tex.App.—Amarillo 1991, pet. ref’d ), §§14:12, 14:13 Calloway v. State, 699 S.W.2d 824 (Tex. Crim. App. 1985), §4:64 Calloway v. State, 743 S.W.2d 645 (Tex. Crim. App. 1988), §§2:24, 2:60, 12:13 Calton v. State, 176 S.W.3d 231 (......
-
Right to Counsel and Effective Assistance of Counsel
...TO COUNSEL, EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL 4-29 Rංඁඍ ඍඈ Cඈඎඇඌൾඅ ൺඇൽ Eൿൿൾർඍංඏൾ Aඌඌංඌඍൺඇർൾ ඈൿ Cඈඎඇඌൾඅ §4:66 claim. Calloway v. State, 699 S.W.2d 824 (Tex. Crim. App. 1985). §4:65 Duty of Counsel Where the record shows that the defendants were never warned by their trial attorney or by the c......