Farmer v. State, 40563
| Decision Date | 18 October 1967 |
| Docket Number | No. 40563,40563 |
| Citation | 419 S.W.2d 382 |
| Parties | William Nelson FARMER, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee. |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Tom Roberts, Carthage, for appellant.
Leon B. Douglas, State's Atty., Austin, for the State.
The conviction is for the felony offense of driving while intoxicated (Art. 802b Vernon's Ann.P.C.); the punishment, 30 days in jail and a fine of $200.
The sole ground of error is: 'The trial court erred in denying the defendant's motion for a continuance of ten (10) days in which to prepare for trial and the denial of this state and constitutional right colored the whole trial of this case denying the defendant his right to a fair trial in violation of Article 26.04(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the Sixth (6th) Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.'
The record reflects that appellant retained Hon. Davis Bailey as his attorney but was unable to pay him a fee. Thereafter, the court allowed Mr. Bailey to withdraw from the case and, on September 26, 1966, appointed Hon. Tom Roberts to represent appellant.
On October 3, 1966, the case being called for trial, appellant and his counsel Tom Roberts filed a verified motion for continuance directing attention to Art. 26.04(b) Vernon's Ann.C.C.P. and pointing out that the ten day period of time to which appointed counsel is entitled to prepare for trial had not been waived and was specifically requested and was vital to the fair trial of the case.
Art. 26.04 V.A.C.C.P. reads:
'(b) The appointed counsel is entitled to ten days to prepare for trial, but may waive the time by written notice, signed by the counsel and the accused.'
The trial court having found that appellant was too poor to employ counsel, and having appointed counsel Roberts to defend him, erred in directing the defendant to proceed to trial and denying his court appointed counsel's request that he be allowed ten days to prepare for trial. Ex parte Gudel, Tex.Cr.App., 368 S.W.2d 775; Ex parte Meadows,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ex parte Taylor
...See, i.e., Young v. State, 448 S.W.2d 484 (Tex.Cr.App.1970); Steward v. State, 422 S.W.2d 733 (Tex.Cr.App.1968); Farmer v. State, 419 S.W.2d 382 (Tex.Cr.App.1967). In joining the opinion on original submission it was my hope the same approach could be utilized with regard to claimed violati......
-
Walker v. State
...appeal. See, i.e. Young v. State, 448 S.W.2d 484 (Tex.Cr.App.1970); Steward v. State, 422 S.W.2d 733 (Tex.Cr.App.1968); Farmer v. State, 419 S.W.2d 382 (Tex.Cr.App.1967). Clearly Taylor followed Meadows in a like manner, for the opinion stated, 'By our holding today, we do not in any way di......
-
Hill v. State
...on direct appeal. Young v. State, 448 S.W.2d 484 (Tex.Cr.App.1970); Steward v. State, 422 S.W.2d 733 (Tex.Cr.App.1968); Farmer v. State, 419 S.W.2d 382 (Tex.Cr.App.1967); Bennett v. State, 382 S.W.2d 930 (Tex.Cr.App.1964); Ex parte Gudel, 368 S.W.2d 775 (Tex.Cr.App.1963). It has also been h......
-
Marin v. State
...attorney to an indigent accused on the day of trial violated Tex.Code Crim.Proc.Ann. art. 26.04 (Vernon's 1965). In Farmer v. State, 419 S.W.2d 382, 383 (Tex.Cr.App.1967), we held it was error to deny the appointed attorney's request for ten days preparation for trial when he was appointed ......