Tudhope v. State, 5 Div. 425
| Court | Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals |
| Writing for the Court | JOSEPH J. MULLINS |
| Citation | 364 So.2d 708 |
| Parties | Roger Begg TUDHOPE v. STATE. |
| Docket Number | 5 Div. 425 |
| Decision Date | 21 November 1978 |
Page 708
v.
STATE.
Page 709
James B. Sprayberry, Auburn, for appellant.
William J. Baxley, Atty. Gen., and Karen Neal Daniel, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State, appellee.
JOSEPH J. MULLINS, Retired Circuit Judge.
The grand jury of Lee County returned an indictment against the appellant, Roger Begg Tudhope, charging him with grand larceny. Appellant entered a plea of not guilty. A jury found the appellant guilty of grand larceny. The trial court duly sentenced the appellant to five years imprisonment in the penitentiary and the appellant appeals to this Court.
The appellant was at all proceedings in the trial court represented by court appointed counsel, and is so represented in this Court. This appeal was submitted to this Court on briefs.
The appellant contends that the trial court erred to his prejudice on the following grounds: First, in overruling appellant's motion to dismiss his court appointed counsel; second, by overruling appellant's motion to exclude the state's evidence.
The record before us shows that the indictment against the appellant was returned on April 13, 1978. Counsel to represent, assist and defend the appellant was appointed on April 26, 1978. On April 28, 1978 the appellant, attended by his counsel, was duly arraigned and entered a plea of not guilty as charged. The trial court set the case to be tried on Friday, May 12, 1978. When the case was called for trial on May 12, 1978, the appellant made known to the court that he would like to say something to the court.
There was a conference in the courtroom out of the presence and hearing of the jury venire, with the appellant, his counsel, the trial judge, and other officials of the court present. The appellant stated to the trial judge that the counsel the court had appointed for him is not able to represent him and that appellant wanted him taken off the case because there was a conflict of interest, and appellant wanted another counsel appointed to represent him. That the conflict of interest was due to the fact that the counsel appointed by the court to represent the appellant has a law partner whose father is kin to the appellant by marriage, and appellant's wife had filed a divorce suit against him. This request was denied and the case continued for trial until 9:00 o'clock Monday, May 15, 1978 at which time the trial was held.
Page 710
We find nothing in the record...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Gavin v. State
...within the sound discretion of the trial court." Crawford v. State, 479 So.2d 1349, 1355 (Ala.Cr.App.1985). See also, Tudhope v. State, 364 So.2d 708 (Ala.Cr.App.1978).... The right to choose counsel may not be subverted to obstruct the orderly procedure in the court or to interfere with th......
-
Reynolds v. State Of Ala., CR-07-0443
...the sound discretion of the trial court. ' Crawford v. State, 4 7 9 So. 2d 1349, 1355 (Ala. Cr. App. 1985). See also, Tudhope v. State, 364 So. 2d 708 (Ala. Cr. App. 1 978).... The right to choose counsel may not be subverted to obstruct the orderly procedure in the court or to interfere wi......
-
Floyd v. State, CR-13-0623
...the sound discretion of the trial court.’ Crawford v. State, 479 So. 2d 1349, 1355 (Ala. Cr. App. 1985). See also, Tudhope v. State, 364 So. 2d 708 (Ala. Cr. App. 1978).... The right to choose counsel may not be subverted to obstruct the orderly procedure in the court or to interfere with t......
-
Baker v. State
...within the sound discretion of the trial court.' Crawford v. State, 479 So.2d 1349, 1355 (Ala.Cr.App.1985). See also, Tudhope v. State, 364 So.2d 708 (Ala.Cr.App.1978).... The right to choose counsel may not be subverted to obstruct the orderly procedure in the court or to interfere with th......