TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Pollinzi v. State

Samuel Joseph POLLINZI, Appellant, v. the STATE of Texas, Appellee

Pollinzi v. State, 541 S.W.2d 445 (Tex. Crim. App. 1976)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · State Highest Courts
Decided
October 6, 1976
Docket
No. 53302
Judges
Dally
Citations
541 S.W.2d 4451976 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 1083

Opinion — Dally

OPINION 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.

*446 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), Y.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 Grothers 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.

How later courts describe this case

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

1976: 11979: 11983: 11984: 11990: 11993: 119762026peak 1976 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Peters v. State575 S.W.2d 560 (Tex. Crim. App. 1979)
  2. Marin v. State801 S.W.2d 944 (Tex. App. 1990)
  3. Moreno v. State659 S.W.2d 395 (Tex. Crim. App. 1983) · Concurring in Part, Dissenting in Part
  4. Marin v. State862 S.W.2d 183 (Tex. App. 1993) · Dissent
  5. Green v. State681 S.W.2d 84 (Tex. App. 1984) · Dissent
  6. Munoz v. State542 S.W.2d 173 (Tex. Crim. App. 1976)

Most recent

  1. Marin v. State862 S.W.2d 183 (Tex. App. 1993) · Dissent
  2. Marin v. State801 S.W.2d 944 (Tex. App. 1990)
  3. Green v. State681 S.W.2d 84 (Tex. App. 1984) · Dissent
  4. Moreno v. State659 S.W.2d 395 (Tex. Crim. App. 1983) · Concurring in Part, Dissenting in Part
  5. Peters v. State575 S.W.2d 560 (Tex. Crim. App. 1979)
  6. Munoz v. State542 S.W.2d 173 (Tex. Crim. App. 1976)

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 2

DepthCaseCited by
Meeks v. State, 456 S.W.2d 938 (Tex. Crim. App. 1970) 21
Crothers v. State, 480 S.W.2d 642 (Tex. Crim. App. 1972) 18

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