Ex Parte Daniels

majority opinion of the recitation in the forms, paragraphs to six verdict three Pamela Board DANIELS. to as

of the indictment were referred No. paragraphs alleged prior “counts.” These of felony convictions enhancement Texas, Appeals Court of Criminal They are punishment. therefore Banc. En as “counts” not be referred to and should Jan. such. Appeals In 1942 of Criminal the Court State,

Square Tex.Cr.R. (1942),explained: 193-194 “The did three indictment not contain separate really There was but counts. charged theft,

one count which allegations his convictions former capital alle- less than were but felonies gations, by proof, when sustained punishment.

enhance his To refer loose allegations such is a ‘counts’ expression in some appear

adjudicated meaning cases. The charges ‘count’ is that it a distinct of- fense, there more than and where are indictment, count

one count in an each charge definitely must the commission an offense so that the court submit upon either counts case one of the supported by in order which is evidence prescribed therefore conviction, may, imposed upon upon accused. basis for a conviction entirely upon in this rested case charge theft. If the failed State allegation

sustain then said evidence convictions, no allegation of former evidence, matter how well sustained words, passed when also out. other folded moved out up the main circus (Emphasis all side went with it.” shows supplied.) Alexander, Houston,

Robert F. appel- for lant. Holems, Jr., Atty.

John B. Dist. and Ed- Porter, Houston, ward D. Asst. Atty., Dist. Huttash, Austin, Robert Atty., State’s the State.

OPINION

McCORMICK,Judge. application This is an for writ of habeas corpus pursuant provisions filed to the 11.06, Article Y.A.C.C.P.

Applicant was held to be in direct crimi- nal of court the Honorable sitting assignment Boyer, Max W. County.1 308th District Court Harris The order was the result of an January incident which occurred on applicant appearing pro while se. proceedings, appli- In the course of the argument cant became involved an with Judge Boyer. applicant ordered to leave the courtroom and to not return applicant counsel. until obtained When immediately, failed to leave the courtroom ordered to escort the bailiff was her out. Applicant apparently peacefully went they until reached bailiff the door- way point, appli- of the courtroom. At that physically is attacked cant have the master of the court. The bailiff then applicant general moved to restrain erupted peo- disturbance which several ple involved. were point

The record indicates that at some judge or- after this occurrence the trial brought him for a dered before During summary contempt proceeding. Leg., pursuant which enacted Title Judicial was sentenced to the ch. 1911a, V.A.T.C., Government Code which became visions of Article which has Branch of the September repealed on been Section 1 of Acts 69th effective adjudicated. In cases of construc- hearing, applicant tempt did not of this the course contempt in factual issues relat- but tive the benefit of retained counsel pres- the court’s capaci- ing to activities outside pro to act in a se instead continued resolved, process re- due found to be in direct ence must be ty. Applicant was afforded notice and a quires con- the accused be contempt and ordered to be criminal Standard, hearing. period thirty days. No jail fined in for a Mouille, parte Ex (Tex.Cr.App.1980); 218 imposed. Applicant was ordered fine was In a (Tex.Cr.App.1978). sit- in court costs. 572 S.W.2d 60 pay thirty-three dollars to involving or constructive uation indirect by retained Applicant, represented now legally cannot be contempt, the contemner in counsel, alleges grounds of relief two opportunity a reasonable confined without corpus. of habeas application for writ States, v. counsel. Cooke United to obtain argues that her confinement Applicant first 390, L.Ed. 767 45 S.Ct. 69 267 U.S. denied due illegal because she was is parte Flournoy, Ex (1925); 312 S.W.2d 488 in denied counsel cess of law that she was (Tex.1958), therein. and cases cited Second, during contempt proceedings. is applicant argues that her confinement of direct how cases illegal equal is denied because she ever, constituting contempt the behavior of protection the law the sheriff of because presence of the court. has occurred in the her credit for County denying Harris is knowledge personal of the has good during time served. behavior shown question in and the court is allowed events summary necessary proceeding to Contempt power is a conduct is not accorded notice nor a integral component judicial authority. of the contemner Ex Compa of the Gompers Range v. Bucks &Stove hearing in the usual sense word. Norton, parte Ex parte Flournoy, supra; ny, 221 U.S. 55 L.Ed.2d (1911). (Tex.Cr.App.1981). it is clear the exercise of While authority tempered should be Furthermore, in cases of direct con discretion, common sense and sound con right has no to counsel. tempt, the accused tempt power is accorded latitude be wide States, supra; parte Ex v. Cooke United judicial independence cause it is essential to is, Norton, right to counsel of supra. The Browne, parte Ex authority. pro course, most fundamental one of the Shillitani (Tex.Cr.App.1976); guaranteed under the United tections States, United 86 S.Ct. U.S. for this The rationale States Constitution. (1966). 16 L.Ed.2d 622 principle exception to the basic very limited or any At the outset of discussion explained in the right to counsel was due judicial determination of the States, supra: v. United Cooke case case, process necessary it is order in the courtroom preserve “To distinguish “direct” from “con business, the proper conduct of contempt is contempt. structive” Direct instantly suppress dis- act court must contempt which is committed or occurs physical obstruc- turbance or violence con presence of the court. In direct disrespect when oc- tion or knowledge tempt cases the court has direct need curring court. There is no open of the facts which constitute be- or assistance of counsel of evidence or indirect involves Constructive has punishment, fore because actions outside summary vindi- offense. Such seen the contempt refers court. Constructive dignity and authori- of the court’s cation require testimony produc or the acts which always been so necessary. It has ty is existence. to establish their tion evidence law, and the the common the courts of process of imposed is due important be The distinction is 267 U.S. at law....” imposes different stan cause due the con- proceedings which dards for the parte

This Court has noted in Ex Flour- remedy harsh contempt adju- direct noy, supra: dications is authority ability for, peoples’ the courts to conduct . was committed business [RJelator for, compromised by represented disruptive a direct actions of obey his failure and refusal parte Harvill, contemner. Ex court, given

command of the open (Tex.1967); 415 S.W.2d 174 parte Ex Gor- court, to disclose to the court don, the where- (Tex.1979). 584 S.W.2d 686 It is for produce abouts of the minor child and to this reason that this Court has held that him in court so that might court is whenever of its jurisdiction exercise its to deal with the parts, constituent jury custody of the child in his own best inter- engaged pursuing room are Litigants appearing ests. and others in the work of the court. Ex certainly court are not entitled to counsel supra. It was for this reason that hearing they may and a before com- applicant in parte Aldridge, supra, every type mitted for of direct con- properly determined to have committed di- tempt.” At placed rect contemptu- when he publications also, ous in the corridors of the parte See Ex Terry, 128 U.S. 95 prospective courthouse where (1975). jurors would 32 L.Ed. 405 necessarily parte see them. Aldridge Ex Applicant argued has that the acts of 334 S.W.2d at 169. having which she is accused of committed did place judge’s not take in the us, In the case before it is clear that presence. Applicant judge states that the applicant’s sufficiently behavior was “be did actually activity see much of the justify fore the court” to a determination place which took at the door of the court- that she was in direct Applicant room. judge states that the re- place court. Her actions took in pres quired testimony before could make a ence of judge. though the trial Even some complete determination that details of the disturbance were not noted Therefore, applicant actions occurred. ar- the trial due to the confusion and gues her was constructive rather rapid sequence of the events does not mean argues than direct and therefore presence incident did not occur in the of that she was denied due because undisputed the court. It is she was denied the of counsel. witnessed what he considered a distur The record reflects that the activities compelled interrupt and felt bance court gave applicant’s being rise in held in business and intervene the activities contempt occurred in the 308th District which took at the courtroom en Judge Boyer Court while necessary trance. The felt it was Applicant seated at the bench. states in interrupt further the court’s business rapid confusing effect that due to the calling a recess. sequence did events not actu- The bailiff and the master of the court occurred, ally everything see that but ability are court officers. The 308th general Appli- witnessed a disturbance. District to conduct its duties was Court urges accept proposi- cant this Court compromised by physical the direct attack tion that this means the actions constitut- in on one of its officers the courtroom and ing contempt presence did not occur in the physical presence judge. of the trial of the court. such, applicant’s di- As actions constitute Applicant overlooks the fact that rect presence “in the of the court” does not ground alleg- Applicant’s second of error necessarily mean the immediate equal protection judge. es a violation of because parte Aldridge, of the trial Ex 169 (1960). County given the sheriff of Harris has not Tex.Cr.R. 334 S.W.2d 169 above, good Applicant behavior. justifying As we stated the rationale her credit

711 Tex. alleges policy parte Heptinstall, that it Harris “In 118 is the Ex (1931), County Department award Court Sheriffs Cr.R. our good on for demonstrated Appeals, deciding credit sentences of Criminal whether behavior. states all other in contempt a woman found and sen- prisoners County Harris such receive pay tenced to a fine and serve $100.00 consideration. days be jail should released without fine, having paid first said: contention, addressing find we being a civil a criminal This not but guidance opinion Amarillo fine, omitted], the Appeals parte Rogers, [citations if 1982): judgment not reduced (Tex.App. Amarillo, S.W.2d — entered, in which it was must be question for “The threshold our deter- paid as or satisfied the same manner county mination whether a sheriff prescribed by law for the satisfaction give ‘good jail time’ credit on term for a of a conviction misdemeanor.... for criminal con- assessed Id. 39 S.W.2d tempt of court.... on to 5118a, “The court went hold that

“Article Tex.Rev.Civ.Stat.Ann. pay- (Vernon satisfy judgment by must either Pamphlet Supp.1971-1981), pro- pertinent serving out her part: vides in fine before should be entitled to release. Id. encourage county jail In order to disci- pline, a distinction analy- made Supreme “Our Court used a like prisoners terms so as to extend to Genecov, sis Tex. in Ex orderly, (1945). all such as are There, industrious and the issue obedient, privileges comforts and ac- power to ‘as- was whether had cording deserts; to their ... Commuta- act of punishment sess for more than one conduct, good of time industry single tion for proceeding, in a al- contempt granted in- may obedience be as- though aggregate punishment county jail by mates of punishment each the sheriff sessed exceeds the charge. in single to court is authorized assess for act_’ S.W.2d at statute, Id. 186 in construing “In this a some Holding that the court does 226-27. context, what different Court so, to do our court power have the Appeals said, Criminal has statute ‘[s]uch superior jurisdiction stated provides that the sheriff shall Id. 186 analogous is to a misdemeanor. granting sole discretion in commutation may A be con- S.W.2d at 227. defendant prisoners of time of Those his custo misde- separate, independent victed of serving jail dy county in the terms information, single meanors in a [Emphasis jail.’ State ex rel. added.] reasoned, therefore, court a contemnor Clawson, Vance committed, and be may to have be found (Tex.Cr.App.), cert. denied nom. sub for, than one more assessed Texas, Pruett v. 404 U.S. proceeding. in one Id. act of 182,rehearing L.Ed.2d denied U.S. L.Ed.2d analogy, “Utilizing the misdemeanor (1971). we find the sheriff was authorized give ‘good time’ question

“The 5118a Article 5118a whether Article con- thirty-day for gives power the sheriff time credit on her sentence commute terms, ap- tempt. prisoners serving contempt By its Article 5118a for sentences serving jail terms plies persons apparently impression. one of first to all course, including, those Appeals county jail, Both the Court of Criminal ex have, however, of misdemeanors. State Supreme our decid- convicted Court Thus, Vance, 465 S.W.2d at relating contempt by rel. ed similar issues serv- give those analogizing procedures just fol- as the sheriff from the credit sentences cases. misdemeanor lowed misdemeanor served, ‘good prospective jurors do time’ likewise so courthouse where would necessarily see them.” contempt....” on a sentence for criminal Ex [Emphasis original opinion.] reading case, From of the instant Rogers at 668-669. immedi- contumacious conduct took ately (emphasis add- front of county that a We likewise find ed) it unnecessary is therefore give ‘good time’ sheriff is authorized majority in the instant case to revisit the serving credit to one a sentence for crimi gymnastics engaged Krupps it where However, contempt. granting since the nal personnel, was observed “that court such ‘good solely credit rests of such time’ bailiffs, implicitly, imagines, one Ex rel. sheriff, State discretion of the clerks, reporters, docket coordina- Clawson, supra, and since the Vance v. tors, officers, etc., probation prosecutors, any record fails to reveal facts instant may, through agency theory sort of some tending of such to demonstrate an abuse conduct, report observe contumacious said discretion, we will not interfere. unsuspecting judge thereby conduct to the magically transforming constructive con- prayed The relief for is denied. tempt into direct all the name authority of and officers MILLER, J., concurs in the result of Krupps, Ex Parte the court.” at 160 ground. the first (Campbell, Dissenting). J. CAMPBELL, Judge, concurring and dis- CLINTON, Judge, dissenting. senting. states, opinion “At the majority While I believe the reached judicial determi- outset of discussion case, I once correct result write of due in a nation of the al., Krupps, Parte et again, as I did in necessary to distin- case, it is (Tex.Cr.App.1985) to ad- 712 S.W.2d 144 ‘construc- guish ‘direct’ from perceive I a serious misin- dress what 1 Concerning contempt." tive’ that exer- terpretation of the law of threshold, elsewhere have ob- cise at the served: Maj.

At opinion pg. majority that once the court “The notion seems to be presence that in the the observes kind proper light classification of and mean in the immedi- necessarily “does not [of given contempt] nature of is turned on fur- presence judge” ate of the trial and conduct, passive one will know active and ther, that “the court is whenever type seeing particular of contuma- he is a any parts, of its constituent the to cri- and then is enabled cious conduct engaged in jury room are the according contextu- tique to its narrow it Citing of the court.” pursuing the work surrounding tradi- al classification 395, 334 Aldridge, 169 Tex.Cr.R. Ex Parte Sometimes, however, trappings. a tional S.W.2d, (1960) majority continues the label, by classification problem defies appli- “it for this reason that was by rote.” may not be resolved and thus Parte supra, was cant problems.2 is one of those In view this committed di- properly determined to have recites, contemptu- placed The order of rect when written alia, hearing in a the fami- inter the that after in the corridors of publications ous judge for others and throughout of the trial counsel emphasis unless other All is mine leading she be removed applicant to orders that wise indicated. courtroom; pages four reflect the last from the family pro underlying law Appearing an se in judge appli- exchange the a brief between matter, simply applicant perhaps did because cant, contempt, pronouncing an order his it, protect presents an she not know how to incredibly meager it, handing certify copy, having signing clerk a a Essentially we record. bailiff, custody directing him to take a it to a written order short statement of facts and and, jail finally, applicant her to and commit pages of contempt." The first seventeen "direct The request a statement. denying her to make among report lengthy colloquy the former the Court, Judge Boyer applicant ordered Master of the was ly law matter “was some- from this Court to be removed the Court- Applicant had done aware that causing the room for a disturbance thing at the courtroom door which dis- According to the brief on behalf bench.”3 rupted the Court’s business.” appli- judge, of the at the courtroom door pronouncing findings in his order of of the cant “tried to strike the Master contempt inter alia stated, judge “This purse in the head brief- committed an area conduct was within [appli- case at which time the bailiff threw which was of the Court within against the wall and had to tackle cant] Court could hear and ob- and where [applicant].” serve the conduct” —not that he did. applicant In her contends “that it brief event, regardless In the of what told of an after was hear or see of the judge did or did not doorway to the courtroom— incident the entrance “second disturbance” —that at relying on the of the bail- only after word according applicant, to the Master, iff, possibly courtroom — others —that in a conference room for she was detained contempt.” judge found hours; preparing the four [emphasis by applicant]. To that the brief says his order of direct brief— correctly responds until he court for a not reflect he had discus- convened record does anyone, proceeding. Already sion with but elsewhere states: bereft of counsel matter, primary perforce applicant Judge Boyer expressed no “Although knowledge attempt again represent had to herself. assault 3. An to leave until I peal tested plicant courtroom; der went to a stated determination of law. Rule latter court. dispatch you? do dispatch and you Accordingly, ing. You could ask counsel— Court? Do pass explain THE THE COURT: You don't think so THE COURT: I didn’t ask THE COURT: THE COURT: There is no objected and “THE COURT: From what [APPLICANT]: [APPLICANT]: [APPLICANT]: [APPLICANT]: afford to hire an [APPLICANT]: you, 74(f), exchange immediately preceding that or- you contains that she would be taken don’t think or reconciled recitations in briefs of the case until and of the trial COURT: This Court tries now." Then came the what occurred are taken think with a Texas Rules of way get justice,” only findings some there you announced person you You have heard what I I am You could I Is this— Is this a democratic applicant factual thought pay will is no attorney will rejoined judge, respectively. of fact and conclusions acting? like get justice Appellate get justice way statements she taxes. I would. you you. retained change your you to be told bodily that she politics in this following: would I can deal were from said, Procedure. to deal in from this from from the question. now, do counsel; tending "refuse saying, uncon- court? "l could said. me, rul- See ap- ap- business when business The last court had recessed the court or the curred. From is so of the en a room door the ion infers that after that other had turned to should have Most this. me,” him; room and "remove her without told the bailiff to courtroom not back you THE THE BAILIFF: Let’s (Recess).” (Mrs. Remove her from [APPLICANT]: [The picture likely justice ambiguous that one cannot tell whether case rather than to remove this woman from the court- only way but was informed I don’t believe this she parenthetical note of the court ^[******] "by COURT: And don’t let her bailiff asked Daniels is to have counsel with her. matter rather the protested of the don’t been and I unless she has counsel. calling other business that notation the reporter was the "second disturbance” you case was "recessed.” took a permit taking judge, just don’t I want to take a the disturbance a get help if needed and to can that "he can’t do that recess,” the courtroom. further the court. applicant to leave with interrupted after accept than in instant go. picture it was not down her to come back in. and I permit "he indicating a recess the court activity."] but can;” it. proceedings in object. majority opin- her to come at the court- if the court back in this the court’s engaged picture had reporter reporter I order Judge.) This is If the cause. tak- oc- calling order, After court to be findings on extensive of facts made him announced, the “The Court has made for the court. findings certain concerning family law [the outset, “At the let it be understood Denying request to record matter].” that we are proposi- not committed to the proceedings, the he then stated into the tion that this is a case of constructive findings record and order of the Court and is, occuring one outside —that committed, promptly ordered her viz: presence the of the court—as distin- “THE COURT: She is jail. remanded to guished from direct which oc- May I make a state- [APPLICANT]: presence curs the of the court.” ment? Aldridge, at 165. No, THE you COURT: may not.” original submission, On majority the Principally relying parte on Ex Aldridge, opinion out, points here the Aldridge court (Tex.Cr. 169 Tex.Cr.R. 334 S.W.2d 161 determined, “The court is whenev- App.1960), majority the reasons that her er parts of its constituent engaged are contumacious conduct was committed “in prosecution of the business of the presence the Ergo, court.” the mat parts which constituent include the contempt.” ter is a “direct Let us revisit judge, courtroom, jury, the the jury and the Aldridge, supra. room.” Though publi- Ibid. the offensive Judge Honorable Paul McCollum was cation actually was not distributed and cir- Presiding of the court in which a criminal culated in the undisputed “the proceeding through case was jury selection publication evidence shows that the was to trial. There had been circulated in and placed circulated the immediate courthouse, around the including a area presence prospective jurors of those who prospective jurors where being kept, were waiting place were assigned [in them] publication critically mentioning “news” outside the courtroom in the corridors of trial, Judge McCollum and his relation- being courthouse ... before called to ship attorney for the accused. Learn- upon be examined and selected that, ing of Judge McCollum conferred then in selected.” parties, with counsel for the concluded that Accordingly, Ibid. “pres- Court found held, a fair trial could not then be dis- ence of the court extended to and included charged postponed trial; the venire and prospective jurors and the as- investigation then he initiated an “as to the signed to them to if wait.” Ibid. Thus propriety contempt proceeding.” of a Al- correctly trial court publica- found that the dridge, 334 at 162-163.. had tion “interfered with the due adminis- justice tration of in a case which was then contempt pro- The State instituted the trial,” on then “direct ceeding was shown against Aldridge “by filing a com- to have been committed in the plaint seeking in the district court to have ...” Ibid. adjudged of court” publishing circulating a “news” Turning findings to address the made publication by nearly deemed offensive all judge assigned to hear the parties, opinion affected proceeding they sup- the Court found were reproduces length allega- at those evidence, ported by ample and so held: charging publication tions con- “The conclusion is reached that temptuous. 163-164. trial to reach the was authorized Though when, opinion say does not judgment conclusion and enter the that contempt proceeding came on for trial be- holding he did judge, fore a different Honorable J.H. Star- court.” ley; relator defended on constitutional at grounds of press freedom of the and denial Id., point process. Judge Starley By of due at now the of this close review Though the judgment Aldridge rendered the based should be obvious:

715 (1974) labeled it a case of “direct con- Taylor Hayes, 488, v. 418 U.S. tempt,” by as outlined and described the 2697, (1974), 41 L.Ed.2d 897 have Court, Judge McCollum, counsel for the taught us judge that when a trial does not parties Judge Starley handled the convict and sentence for various disruptive ceedings beginning from to end in a form occur,” they acts “as “there is no over- contempt! of constructive riding necessity for instant pre- action to justification dispens- serve order and no for Writing for rehearing, Court on ordinary with the rudiments of due Judge recognized Morrison and acknowl- process,” 513, Codispoti, supra, 418 U.S. at edged proceeding that “this appears to hand, 94 S.Ct. at 1692. “On the other initiated theory been and tried on the where conviction and are de- guilty relator was of constructive con- ..., id., layed, argue ‘it is difficult to tempt that action Accordingly, having at 167. alluding hearing reexamined the record and to without notice or addi- kind is part played by tional evidence of the necessary preserve rela- to order and enable [the ” affair, tor the Court concluded that proceed business,’ to with its Tay- court] proved published “the State that relator Hayes, supra, lor v. 418 U.S. at matter which constitutes Martin, S.Ct. at 2703. See Ex proceeding,” the basis for this ibid. The (Tex.Cr.App.1982). S.W.2d 443 rehearing motion for was therefore over- summary during Just as convictions trial Id., ruled. at 168. facts, by that are unwarranted so also the instant cause contemptu- one like this “will not be to invulnerable ous conduct took on a form that is not appellate by “duty review” a court bound susceptible easy classification as either independent to make an examination of the contempt. constructive or direct Codispoti, supra, evidence the record.” Clearly a “disturbance” occurred at an en- at U.S. S.Ct. and n. 6. trance to applicant the courtroom in which Having made such an examination of the was majority opinion involved. While the law, applicable judgment facts and best says judge “compelled felt to inter- custody is that to remand “to the rupt court business and intervene County of Harris Sheriff to serve activities which took at the courtroom the ordered sentence” is to sanction a deni- entrance,” and that necessary “it was process premises. al of due in the interrupt further court’s business was convicted and sen- recess,” calling a support find no for that creating tenced for the second disturbance majority conclusion—unless the means that judge “as it occurred.” The had or- investigate recessed to bailiff been the mat- by speaking ter judge only to the dered bailiff and others remove her from prepared and then contempt. his order of Though and that was done. lapse After a judge time the did recon- majority says judge “witnessed findings vene state his of fact and disturbance,” what considered to be a conclusions of law and order of clearly did not then and there he rendered for the court. What Rather, summarily hold her in presented hybrid here is at best a form of record, authority under not revealed contempt, proceeding and a which the brief detained for an extend- she was elsewhere hearing concedes was not “a hours, according period ed to her —four as to contempt.” the issue of brief, or the taken time while prepare recess order for

Regardless label, of its the ultimate findings conclu- and include written question proceeding is whether the com- according sions the order of ported requisites of due taken premises. the brief Codispoti Pennsylvania, —before By then “action without U.S. L.Ed.2d 912 back into court. trial, during Hayes, supra, 418 Taylor v. hearing kind notice or [was not] at 1703. U.S. at preserve and enable necessary to order [the proceed with its business.”4 court] Accordingly, respectfully dissent. Furthermore, after the order was DUNCAN, JJ., join. TEAGUE nounced, requested though specifically it, opportunity denied “an applicant was in the nature of

speak in own behalf [her] allocution,” thereby de- and was sum- is due when nied “[e]ven imposed mary punishment hold the was unable to W. bias that the 4. We judicially that Honorable Max know vindicating Legal the interests judge. Texas balance between Boyer trial See 1 is a retired Contrary of the accused.’ Directory p. to another the court and the interests despite stringent bar trial Hayes, supra, rule sometimes Taylor v. ‘Such lesson of exchanges stormy by judges at the actual bias and who personal who have no nature matter, family weigh hearing very the scales of law do their best to bench while would contending parties,’ visiting judge apparently did not consider hav- justice equally between contempt proceed- conduct a process requires a local no less." but due ing. judge does appears that a trial Thus it when running controversy in a become “embroiled conduct, per- short of a "But mounting dis- [party]’’ "there [is] with a attack, provoke a trial still sonal personal toward play attitude of an unfavorable controversy that he him in and so embroil motives, ability party], his suffi- nice, clear, his [that true cannot hold the balance should ciently [be] issue so that the accused....’ [cita- the state and between ..., finally adjudicated [one] another throughout]. making this tions omitted purpose of final- should substituted inquiry [be] judgment, must be not ultimate charges contempt....’’ ly disposing re- a actual bias on whether there was 501-503, supra, Hayes, U.S. at Taylor v. spondent’s part, whether there was but also appearance S.Ct. at 2704-2705. of bias or an ‘such a likelihood

Case Details

Case Name: Ex Parte Daniels

Court Name: Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas

Date Published: Jan 14, 1987

Citation: 722 S.W.2d 707

Docket Number: 69427

Court Abbreviation: Tex. Crim. App.