Pollinzi v. State, 53302
| Decision Date | 06 October 1976 |
| Docket Number | No. 53302,53302 |
| Citation | 541 S.W.2d 445 |
| Parties | Samuel Joseph POLLINZI, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee. |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Melvyn Carson Bruder, Dallas, for appellant.
Henry M. Wade, Dist. Atty., Dallas, Jim D. Vollers, State's Atty. and David S. McAngus, Asst. State's Atty., Austin, for the State.
DALLY, Commissioner.
This is an appeal from a conviction for the offense of possession of heroin. The appellant waived trial by jury and entered a plea of guilty before the court. The punishment is imprisonment for 10 years.
The appellant contends that the trial court erred in trying this case without affording the appellant's counsel ten days to prepare for trial following the appointment of counsel as required by Art. 26.04, V.A.C.C.P. This contention must be sustained and the judgment reversed.
The indictment was returned on September 3, 1974; counsel was appointed to represent appellant on September 6, 1974; on September 9, 1974, appellant was convicted.
Art. 26.04(b), V.A.C.C.P., provides:
'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 record does not contain a written waiver signed by appointed counsel and the accused waiving the ten days' time provided to prepare for trial. The requirement of Art. 26.04(b), supra, is mandatory. Crothers v. State, 480 S.W.2d 642 (Tex.Cr.App.1972), and cases there cited.
Unlike Meeks v. State, 456 S.W.2d 938 (Tex.Cr.App.1970), and other like cases cited in Crothers v. State, supra, the record in this case does not affirmatively show that court-appointed counsel had sufficient time to prepare for trial and that the appointment was made merely to allow payment for services.
For the failure of the record to show compliance with Art. 26.04(b), supra, the judgment must be reversed and the cause remanded.
The judgment is reversed and the cause remanded.
Opinion approved by the Court.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Moreno v. State
...v. State, 480 S.W.2d 642 (Tex.Cr.App.1972), and cases there cited; Hayles v. State, 507 S.W.2d 213 (Tex.Cr.App.1974); Pollinzi v. State, 541 S.W.2d 445 (Tex.Cr.App.1976); Peters v. State, 575 S.W.2d 560 Where there is a showing that there has been a failure to comply with the mandatory prov......
-
Marin v. State, 3-88-179-CR
...and failure to comply therewith constituted reversible error without the necessity of showing harm or prejudice. See Pollinzi v. State, 541 S.W.2d 445, 446 (Tex.Cr.App.1976); Hayles v. State, 507 S.W.2d 213, 214 (Tex.Cr.App.1974); Crothers v. State, 480 S.W.2d 642, 643 (Tex.Cr.App.1972); St......
-
Marin v. State
...did not file a motion for new trial. The immediate forerunner of article 1.051(e) 2 was also a mandatory statute. Pollinzi v. State, 541 S.W.2d 445, 446 (Tex.Crim.App.1976). Under that statute, it was wholly immaterial whether any complaint regarding the sufficiency of the preparation perio......
-
Green v. State
... ... Pollinzi ... v. State, 541 S.W.2d 445 (Tex.Crim.App.1976). There was no motion for continuance and no objection was voiced at the time of trial nor was such ... ...