Culverhouse v. State, 397-85
Decision Date | 29 June 1988 |
Docket Number | No. 397-85,397-85 |
Parties | David Leslie CULVERHOUSE, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee. |
Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Joe E. Shumate, Henderson, Jon R. "Randy" Farrar, Huntsville, for appellant.
William L. Ferguson, Co. Atty. and Richard W. White and Darrell Hyatt, Asst. Co. Attys., Henderson, Robert Huttash, State's Atty., Austin, for the State.
Before the court en banc.
OPINION ON APPELLANT'S PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW
Appellant was found guilty by a jury of the offense of attempted murder. See V.T.C.A., Penal Code, § 15.01 and 19.02(a)(1). The jury assessed punishment at 20 years' imprisonment. The cause was tried in Walker County after a change of venue from Rusk County.
On appeal appellant contended, inter alia, the trial court "erred in compelling appellant to proceed in trial before jury in leg irons, handcuffs, and a belly band" and the trial court erred in refusing the request to dismiss standby counsel. The Court of Appeals rejected these points of error as well as the others, and affirmed the conviction in an unpublished opinion. Culverhouse v. State (Tex.App.--Houston [14th]--No. D14-83-823-CR--Feb. 28, 1985). Citing a finding of the trial judge as to the necessity of the shackles the Court of Appeals observed the issue was whether the trial judge abused his discretion and concluded he did not. Likewise it found no abuse of discretion in the refusal to dismiss standby counsel.
We granted appellant's petition for discretionary review to determine the correctness of that decision.
The indictment charged appellant with attempted murder of Layton Cummings "by shooting the said Layton Cummings with a firearm." Cummings was a manager trainee of a Safeway Store in Henderson, who was shot by appellant, shortly after appellant had shot and killed his girlfriend with a machine gun. After shooting up the store, appellant fled to Jacksonville and "holed up" in a motel keeping police at bay for some 15 hours while falsely claiming to have a 16-year-old hostage whom he threatened to kill.
While the record is not altogether clear, it appears appellant was tried for murder prior to the instant case in Bowie County after a change of venue from Rusk County. At the instant trial appellant exercised his right to self-representation. See Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806, 95 S.Ct. 2525, 45 L.Ed.2d 562 (1975). His former appointed counsel was ordered to become standby counsel. At a pretrial hearing in Rusk County after the court admonished appellant of the disadvantages of representing himself, the record reflects:
Subsequently, and again before trial in Walker County and after the granting of the motion to shuffle the jury panel, the record reflects:
The foregoing excerpts from the record contain the basis for the trial court's order. 1
The State concedes that appellant was restrained at all times during the trial as he alleges, and argues that such restraint was both necessary and proper under the circumstances.
Generally, a defendant has a right to be tried without being handcuffed. Lyons v. State, 668 S.W.2d 767 (Tex.App.--Houston [1st Dist.] 1984) (pet. ref'd).
In Gray v. State, 99 Tex.Cr.R. 305, 268 S.W. 941, 950 (Tex.Cr.App.1924), this Court stated:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Metcalf v. State, 90-KA-1227
...S.W.2d 252 (Tenn.1986); Reed v. State, 491 N.E.2d 182 (Ind.1986); State v. Cooley, 468 N.W.2d 833 (Iowa App.1991); Culverhouse v. State, 755 S.W.2d 856 (Tex.Cr.App.1988); Scarbrough v. State, 777 S.W.2d 83 (Tex.Cr.App.1989); Ortberg v. State, 751 P.2d 1368 (Alaska App.1988); Parren v. State......
-
Harris v. State
...57 N.Y.2d 12, 453 N.Y.S.2d 418, 438 N.E.2d 1133 (1982), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1178, 103 S.Ct. 830, 74 L.Ed.2d 1024 (1983); Culverhouse v. State, 755 S.W.2d 856 (Tex.Crim.App.), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 863, 109 S.Ct. 164, 102 L.Ed.2d 134 (1988); State v. Watkins, 71 Wash.App. 164, 857 P.2d 3......
-
Harris v. State
...57 N.Y.2d 12, 453 N.Y.S.2d 418, 438 N.E.2d 1133 (1982), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1178, 103 S.Ct. 830, 74 L.Ed.2d 1024 (1983); Culverhouse v. State, 755 S.W.2d 856 (Tex.Crim.App.), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 863, 109 S.Ct. 164, 102 L.Ed.2d 134 (1988); State v. Watkins, 71 Wash.App. 164, 857 P.2d 3......
-
Medley v. State
...United States v. Pollani, 146 F.3d 269 (5th Cir. 1998); United States v. Taylor, 933 F.2d 307 (5th Cir. 1991); and Culverhouse v. State, 755 S.W.2d 856 (Tex.Crim.App. 1988), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 863, 109 S.Ct. 164, 102 L.Ed.2d 134 (1988), in supporting the trial judge's actions as not vio......
-
Table of cases
...778 (Tex.Cr.App. 1984), §6:05 Cuellar v. State, 957 S.W.2d 134 (Tex.App.—Corpus Christi 1997, pet. ref’d ), §17:12 Culverhouse v. State , 755 S.W.2d 856 (Tex.Cr.App. 1988), §15:90 — D — Daggett v. State, 187 S.W.3d 236 (Tex.Cr.App. 2005), §15:152 Dale v. State , 90 S.W.3d 826 (Tex.App.—San ......
-
Trial Motions
...jury’s presence, unless there is a showing of exceptional circumstances or a manifest need for such restraints. Culverhouse v. State , 755 S.W.2d 856 (Tex.Cr.App. 1988). While freedom from shackling and manacling of a defendant during the trial of a criminal case has long been recognized as......
-
Trial motions
...jury’s presence, unless there is a showing of exceptional circumstances or a manifest need for such restraints. Culverhouse v. State , 755 S.W.2d 856 (Tex. Crim. App. 1988). While freedom from shackling and manacling of a defendant during the trial of a criminal case has long been recognize......