Meeks v. State
| Decision Date | 22 July 1970 |
| Docket Number | No. 43056,43056 |
| Citation | 456 S.W.2d 938 |
| Parties | Samuel Earl MEEKS, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee. |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Wallace Shropshire, Austin, for appellant.
Robert O. Smith, Dist. Atty., Dain P. Whitworth, Asst. Dist. Atty., and Jim D. Vollers, State's Atty., Austin, for the State.
The offense is burglary; the punishment, enhanced by two prior convictions for a felony less than capital, life.
Trial was before a jury on a plea of not guilty. The jury returned a verdict of guilty, and punishment was assessed by the court. The sufficiency of the evidence is not questioned.
Appellant's first ground of error presents the contention that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel at his trial, as guaranteed by the 6th and 14th Amendments to the Constitution of the United States. It is appellant's contention that his court appointed attorney refused to take an active role as an advocate in the trial of this case.
The record reveals that appellant was apprehended while inside the closed B. L. Howard's Pit Barbeque restaurant in Austin, Texas, the arresting officer first discovering appellant in the building at 3:15 A.M.
Appellant complains that his trial counsel failed to discuss his case with him, refused to call the co-defendant to testify in his behalf, failed to conduct a voir dire examination of the jury panel, and refused to allow appellant to testify in his own behalf.
The record clearly reveals that said counsel actively participated in the trial of this case, cross-examined witnesses and objected to the introduction of evidence by the state. The applicable rule is stated by this court in Washington v. State, 450 S.W.2d 630:
Appellant's claim of ineffective assistance is not supported by the record. His first ground of error is overruled.
Appellant's second ground of error contends that the trial court...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ashcraft v. State
...Marin v. State, 891 S.W.2d 267, 272 (Tex.Crim.App.1994); Moore v. State, 493 S.W.2d 844, 845 (Tex.Crim.App.1973); Meeks v. State, 456 S.W.2d 938, 939 (Tex.Crim.App.1970). "It is the actual preparation time, not the time of formal appointment, that determines whether a defendant has been giv......
-
Vasquez v. State
...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 insufficient to support the plea of guilty. Assuming that the question is properly befo......
-
Moreno v. State
...discovery more than ten days before the trial. It was held that appointed counsel had more than ten days to prepare. In Meeks v. State, 456 S.W.2d 938 (Tex.Cr.App.1970); Gray v. State, 475 S.W.2d 246 (Tex.Cr.App.1971); and Lee v. State, 478 S.W.2d 469 (Tex.Cr.App.1972), the records showed c......
-
Marin v. State
...the party being tried shall have a fair trial." Brotherton v. State, 30 Tex.App. 369, 17 S.W. 932, 933 (1891). In Meeks v. State, 456 S.W.2d 938, 939 (Tex.Cr.App.1970), we stated: "The purpose of Article 26.04(b) V.A.C.C.P. is clearly to guarantee to an indigent accused that he and his cour......