United States v. Sexton, No. 72-2817. Summary Calendar.

CourtUnited States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (5th Circuit)
Writing for the CourtJOHN R. BROWN, , and GOLDBERG and MORGAN, Circuit
Citation473 F.2d 512
Docket NumberNo. 72-2817. Summary Calendar.
Decision Date06 February 1973
PartiesUNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Charles W. SEXTON, Defendant-Appellant.

473 F.2d 512 (1973)

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,
Charles W. SEXTON, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 72-2817. Summary Calendar.*

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

February 6, 1973.

473 F.2d 513

Calvin M. Whitesell, Montgomery, Ala., for defendant-appellant.

Ira DeMent, U. S. Atty., David B. Byrne, Jr., Wade B. Perry, Jr., Asst. U. S. Attys., Montgomery, Ala., for plaintiff-appellee.

Before JOHN R. BROWN, Chief Judge, and GOLDBERG and MORGAN, Circuit Judges.

JOHN R. BROWN, Chief Judge.

Charles W. Sexton was indicted on February 17, 1971 on charges of violating various provisions of the Internal Revenue Code relating to possession of non-tax-paid distilled spirits, 26 U.S. C.A. § 5205(a) (2) and 26 U.S.C.A. § 5604(a) (1). He was tried before a jury and found guilty on June 29, 1971. Appeal was taken to this court and we reversed on April 13, 1972.1 A new trial was set for the week of June 19, 1972.

On June 15, 1972, Sexton's attorney petitioned the court to be discharged as court-appointed counsel in the case.2 On the same day Sexton filed a general motion for continuance on the ground that his newly retained counsel was to be engaged in another trial on the day prior to the date set for trial and thus would not have adequate time to prepare a defense. The court issued an order denying the petition to discharge counsel as well as the defendant's motion for continuance. On June 16, 1972 Sexton filed a pro se motion in the nature of a motion for reconsideration requesting that counsel newly retained by his parents be allowed to represent him and that court-appointed counsel be discharged. He further requested that the district Judge recuse himself on the ground of prejudice. The motion was denied by order on the same day.3 Trial of the case was

473 F.2d 514
commenced on June 20, 1972 and a jury verdict of guilty was returned on the following day. This appeal timely followed. We affirm


Appellant first contends that the court's refusal to discharge court-appointed counsel and its denial of the motions for continuance together amounted to an abuse of discretion by the trial judge which thereby deprived appellant of his right to effective assistance of counsel of his choice.

We hold that the trial court's denial of Sexton's motions did not deprive him of any constitutional right. While it cannot be disputed that the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution grants an accused in a criminal prosecution an absolute unqualified right to have the assistance of counsel for his defense, it does not necessarily follow that his right to a particular counsel is absolute and unqualified. United States...

To continue reading

Request your trial
50 cases
  • Birt v. Montgomery, 82-8156
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (11th Circuit)
    • 13 Febrero 1984
    ...denied due process. Many such cases have so held, and we find that they control the outcome of Birt's claim. In United States v. Sexton, 473 F.2d 512 (5th Cir.1973), the defendant was convicted in 1971 of tax violations relating to the possession of non-tax-paid distilled spirits. On April ......
  • U.S. v. Uptain, 75--2487
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (5th Circuit)
    • 20 Mayo 1976
    ...may not be used for the purposes of delay. See United States v. Harrelson, 477 F.2d 383 (5 Cir. 1973), quoting United States v. Sexton, 473 F.2d 512 (5 Cir. 1973); United States v. Terry, 449 F.2d 727 (5 Cir. 1971). The courts noted in each case that there was prior opportunity to bring to ......
  • U.S. v. Burton, 76-1839
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (District of Columbia)
    • 24 Agosto 1978
    ...v. Rodriguez Vallejo, 496 F.2d 960, 964-65 (4th Cir. 1974); United States v. Inman, supra, 483 F.2d at 740; United States v. Sexton, 473 F.2d 512, 514 (5th Cir. 1973); Marxuach v. United States, supra, 398 F.2d at By this, we do not mean that the court may inquire, without more, into the de......
  • Reynolds v. State, CR–07–0443.
    • United States
    • Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals
    • 14 Diciembre 2012
    ...subverted to obstruct the orderly procedure in the court or to interfere with the fair administration of justice. United States v. Sexton, 473 F.2d 512 (5th Cir.1973).” “ ‘Briggs v. State, 549 So.2d 155, 160 (Ala.Crim.App.1989). “ ‘ “In order to prevail on a motion for substitution of couns......
  • 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