Wiggins v. State
Decision Date | 26 March 1975 |
Docket Number | No. 49647,49647 |
Citation | 520 S.W.2d 780 |
Parties | Carl Edwin WIGGINS, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee. |
Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Brock Huffman, San Antonio, (Court-appointed), for appellant.
Ted Butler, Dist. Atty., Fred G. Rodriguez, C. Michael Schill and David K. Chapman, Asst. Dist. Attys., San Antonio, Jim D. Vollers, State's Atty., and David S. McAngus, Asst. State's Atty., Austin, for the State.
DAVIS, Commissioner.
Appeal is taken from a conviction for robbery by assault. Punishment, enhanced under the provisions of Art. 62, Vernon's Ann.P.C., was assessed at life.
At the outset, it is urged that appellant was denied the right to defend himself without the assistance of counsel. It is apparently appellant's position that there was incompatibility between appellant and his counsel which resulted in ineffective assistance of counsel and an inadequate defense.
The record reflects that the appellant requested that he be allowed to represent himself Pro se. The court ruled that the appellant could conduct his own trial, but appointed attorneys Samples and Graham to be available to consult and confer with the appellant.
During the course of the trial, the appellant filed and argued several motions. He conducted voir dire examination of the jurors, direct and cross-examination of witnesses, and presented final argument to the jury. At several points during the proceeding, counsel sought to offer advice and assistance. The trial court was careful to insure that any action taken by counsel was in accordance with the wishes of the appellant. The trial judge took great efforts to make sure that the defense was conducted according to the requests of the appellant. The following excerpt from the record is an example of the many times that the trial judge heeded the appellant's wishes and required counsel to follow appellant's defensive theory.
In summary, the trial court wisely refused to completely exclude counsel and required their presence for consultation and advice. These actions safeguarded the rights of the appellant at trial. A careful review of the record convinces us that appellant's complaint that he did not have a fair trial or adequate representation of counsel is totally without merit. See Woods v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 479 S.W.2d 952; Carr v. State, Tex.Cr.App.,475 S.W.2d 755; Harris v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 425 S.W.2d 642; Mayberry v. Pennsylvania, 400 U.S. 455, 91 S.Ct. 499, 27 L.Ed.2d 532 (1971).
Appellant contends that he was denied the right to compulsory process for obtaining witnesses. Appellant complains that four witnesses did not appear at trial. A defendant in a criminal case...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Houston v. Estelle, 76-4242
... ... On November 8, 1972, appellant Arthur Houston Jr. was convicted of possession of heroin, a crime under the laws of the state of Texas. The jury which convicted Houston sentenced him to 99 years imprisonment, the maximum sentence allowed for this crime. Houston had never ... ...
-
Webb v. State
...in the event that termination of the defendant's self-representation is necessary.' 95 S.Ct. 2525, at 2541.And see Wiggins v. State, 520 S.W.2d 780 (Tex.Cr.App.1975).2 However, a patient trial judge may allow both counsel and the accused to jointly participate in the case.3 A trial court is......
-
Romo v. State
...State's objection. The error, if any, was not preserved for review. Ashley v. State, 362 S.W.2d 847 (Tex.Cr.App.1962); Wiggins v. State, 520 S.W.2d 780 (Tex.Cr.App.1975); Ashford v. State, 502 S.W.2d 27 (Tex.Cr.App.1973); Bolden v. State, 489 S.W.2d 300 (Tex.Cr.App.1972); Thomas v. State, 4......
-
Blankenship v. State
...or forego cooperation with defense counsel in order to preserve the issue for appeal." Brown, supra at 612.5 Compare Wiggins v. State, 520 S.W.2d 780, 782 (Tex.Cr.App.1975), affirmed McKaskle v. Wiggins, --- U.S. ----, 104 S.Ct. 944, 79 L.Ed.2d 122 (1984) where the trial judge in the proper......