Meeks v. State, No. 43056

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas. Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas
Writing for the CourtWOODLEY
Citation456 S.W.2d 938
PartiesSamuel Earl MEEKS, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.
Docket NumberNo. 43056
Decision Date22 July 1970

Page 938

456 S.W.2d 938
Samuel Earl MEEKS, Appellant,
v.
The STATE of Texas, Appellee.
No. 43056.
Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
July 22, 1970.

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.

OPINION

WOODLEY, Presiding Judge.

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:

'The test for ineffective assistance of counsel is whether, 'the trial was a

Page 939

mockery of justice, or was shocking to the reviewing court, or perfunctory, in bad faith, a sham, a pretense, or without adequate opportunity for conference or preparation.' Williams v. Beto, 5th Cir., 354 F.2d 698. The constitutional right to effective assistance of counsel has been held to mean 'not errorless counsel, not counsel judged ineffective by hindsight, but counsel reasonably likely to render and rendering reasonably effective assistance.' Goodrum v. Beto, D.C.Tex., 296 F.Supp. 710; King v. Beto, D.C.Tex., 305 F.Supp. 636.'

Appellant's claim of ineffective assistance is not supported by the record. His first ground of error is overruled.

...

To continue reading

Request your trial
21 practice notes
  • Ashcraft v. State, No. 13-94-00022-CR
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Texas
    • May 4, 1995
    ...trial. 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 b......
  • Vasquez v. State, No. 44275
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Texas. Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas
    • February 16, 1972
    ...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 Appellant contends that the evidence is insufficient to support the plea of guilty. Assuming that the question is properly before us for review, t......
  • Moreno v. State, No. 626-82
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Texas. Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas
    • June 1, 1983
    ...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, No. 1265-93
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Texas. Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas
    • December 14, 1994
    ...that 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......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
21 cases
  • Ashcraft v. State, No. 13-94-00022-CR
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Texas
    • May 4, 1995
    ...trial. 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 b......
  • Vasquez v. State, No. 44275
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Texas. Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas
    • February 16, 1972
    ...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 Appellant contends that the evidence is insufficient to support the plea of guilty. Assuming that the question is properly before us for review, t......
  • Moreno v. State, No. 626-82
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Texas. Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas
    • June 1, 1983
    ...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, No. 1265-93
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Texas. Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas
    • December 14, 1994
    ...that 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......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT