Ex parte Williams
| Decision Date | 05 April 1967 |
| Docket Number | No. 40239,40239 |
| Citation | 414 S.W.2d 472 |
| Parties | Ex parte John Clayton WILLIAMS. |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Wm. Brode Mobley, Jr., Corpus Christi, for relator.
Sam L. Jones, Dist. Atty., W., DeWitt Alsup, Asst. Dist. Atty., Corpus Christi, and Leon B. Douglas, State's Atty., Austin, for the State.
Relator, in inmate of the Department of Corrections, made application to the 105th Judicial District Court for writ of habeas corpus alleging that he is illegally restrained by virtue of a conviction in cause #10822 in said court, which resulted in a conviction for the offense of burglary with two prior felony convictions alleged for enhancement in which his punishment was assessed at confinement for life. Relator's conviction was appealed to this Court, and the same was affirmed. Williams v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 364 S.W.2d 403.
He bases his attack upon the following contentions:
1. He first contends that his prior conviction in cause #8015 in the 107th Judicial District Court of Cameron County, which was one of the convictions alleged for enhancement, was void because, though represented by court appointed counsel at the time probation was granted upon his plea of guilty in said cause, he was not represented by counsel at the time of the revocation of such probation in 1952.
2. Secondly, he contends that his prior conviction in cause #1947 in the District Court of Hutchinson County, the other conviction alleged for enhancement, was void because, though represented by court appointed counsel at the time of the entry of his plea of guilty and the entry of a judgment finding him guilty on February 7, 1956, he was not represented by counsel at the time he was sentenced in said cause on February 10, 1956.
The Honorable J. D. Todd, Judge of said 105th Judicial District held a hearing, granted the writ and has certified the facts to this Court. As to his Cameron County conviction, relator testified at the hearing before Judge Todd that though represented by the Honorable Daniel Rentfro at the time he entered his plea of guilty and was granted probation in 1951, he was not represented by counsel at the time of the revocation of probation in 1952. In 1964, this Court held in Ex parte Crawford, 379 S.W.2d 663, that judgment was not void because his probation, in a prior case used to enhance, had been revoked without probationer's having the assistance of counsel.
Article 42.12, Vernon's Ann.C.C.P., which became effective January 1, 1966, providing for the appointment of counsel at the time probation is sought to be revoked, is not retroactive. See ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Crawford v. State
...v. Rhay is to be applied retroactively. We are not inclined to so hold, especially in view of our recent holdings in Ex parte Williams, Tex.Cr.App., 414 S.W.2d 472, and Ex parte McCarter, Tex.Cr.App., 415 S.W.2d 409, that the provision of Art. 42.12, C.C.P. of 1965, relating to the appointm......
-
Kelly v. State
...Baxstrom v. Herold, 383 U.S. 107, 86 S.Ct. 760, 15 L.Ed.2d 620 (1966).5 Art. 42.12, Vernon's Ann.C.C.P.; Ex parte Williams, 414 S.W.2d 472 (Tex.Cr.App.1967); Mempa v. Rhay, supra. Mempa holding as to the right to counsel at probation revocation proceedings applies retroactively. McConnell v......
-
Smith v. State
...v. State, 552 S.W.2d 433, 438 (Tex.Crim.App.1977); De La Rosa v. State, 414 S.W.2d 668, 669 (Tex.Crim.App.1967); Ex parte Williams, 414 S.W.2d 472, 474 (Tex.Crim.App.1967); Carter v. State, 408 S.W.2d 507, 509 (Tex.Crim.App.1966); see also, Oler v. State, 378 S.W.2d 857, 858 ...
-
Hill v. State
...If the probationer is indigent and has not waived the right, counsel must be appointed. Article 42.12, supra; Ex parte Williams, 414 S.W.2d 472 (Tex.Cr.App.1967); Mempa v. Rhay, 389 U.S. 128, 88 S.Ct. 254, 19 L.Ed.2d 336, which decision was to apply retroactively. McConnell v. Rhay (Stiltne......