TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Ex Parte Dowden

Ex Parte Charles DOWDEN

Ex Parte Dowden, 408 S.W.2d 512 (Tex. Crim. App. 1966)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · State Highest Courts
Decided
November 23, 1966
Docket
No. 39928
Judges
Belcher
Citations
408 S.W.2d 512

Opinion — Belcher

OPINION BELCHER, Judge.

The relator in a habeas corpus proceedings attacks the validity of his fifty year sentence for robbery by assault.

It is undisputed that on the same day that an attorney was appointed by the trial court to represent the relator Dowden as provided by Art. 494, Vernon’s Ann. C.C.P. (now Art. 26.04 C.C.P.), the relator entered a plea of guilty in Cause No. 5676, in the District Court of Orange County, Texas, and the court proceeded to hear and render its decision, and also on that day pronounced sentence against him.

Art. 494, supra, in effect at the time of this conviction, reads in part as follows:

“Whenever it is made known to the court at an arraignment or any other time that an accused charged with a felony is too poor to employ a counsel, the court shall appoint one (1) or more practicing attorneys to defend him.

“The counsel so appointed shall have ten (10) days to prepare for trial, unless such time be waived in writing by said attorneys and the accused.”

It is made to appear that no written waiver of the ten days allowed counsel to prepare for trial was executed by the appointed counsel and the accused.

The provisions of Art. 494, supra, are mandatory and applicable to the facts shown by the record in this cause. Ex parte Gudel, Tex.Cr.App., 368 S.W.2d 775 .

From the record it is evident that this conviction cannot stand.

The writ is granted and it is ordered that the relator be released from his present custody, and that he be delivered to the custody of the sheriff of Orange County, Texas, to answer the indictment in said Cause No. 5676, in the District Court of Orange County.

Opinion approved by the Court.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1967: 21973: 11975: 11994: 119672026peak 1967 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Ex Parte Meadows418 S.W.2d 666 (Tex. Crim. App. 1967)
  2. Marin v. State891 S.W.2d 267 (Tex. Crim. App. 1994)
  3. Ex Parte Taylor522 S.W.2d 479 (Tex. Crim. App. 1975)
  4. Ex parte Reece417 S.W.2d 587 (Tex. Crim. App. 1967)
  5. Jacobs v. State500 S.W.2d 521 (Tex. Crim. App. 1973)

Most recent

  1. Marin v. State891 S.W.2d 267 (Tex. Crim. App. 1994)
  2. Ex Parte Taylor522 S.W.2d 479 (Tex. Crim. App. 1975)
  3. Jacobs v. State500 S.W.2d 521 (Tex. Crim. App. 1973)
  4. Ex parte Reece417 S.W.2d 587 (Tex. Crim. App. 1967)
  5. Ex Parte Meadows418 S.W.2d 666 (Tex. Crim. App. 1967)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 1

DepthCaseCited by
Ex Parte Gudel, 368 S.W.2d 775 (Tex. Crim. App. 1963) 14

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list