*1 Clyde WHITE, Appellant, Texas, Appellee.
The STATE of
Court of Criminal
June Rehearing Denied Oct. Rehearing
Second Denied Jan. appoint- Aselin, Houston, (Court
Louis S. appellant. appeal), ed Atty., C. Vance, Dist. Carol S. James Houston, and Brough, Atty., Asst. Dist. Atty., Austin, Douglas, Leon B. State’s State. *2 441 judgment OPINION is The affirmed. Opinion approved by the Court.
BELCHER, Commissioner. attempted the burglary; The оffense is punishment, P.C., under Art. 63 enhanced life. FOR REHEARING 9, July The indictment returned was WOODLEY, Judge. plea jury guilty Trial before a on a not of in a guilty judg- resulted and finding of day appellant he On was the sentenced ment upon verdict jury’s rendered ap- gave appeal of the court notice and and that court’s the defendant pointed appeal. represent counsel to him on of been twice convicted therеtofore ap- felony. been a has not The record before us by required proved judge, the trial by as Duggar Hon. Lee acted as trial counsel 40.09(7), We Vernon’s Ann.C.C.P. Art. for the defendant. such record arе to from ascertain unable not been denied January 13, 1966, appellant whether has or sen- transсription *3 the final deprived ef has not been of the appellant’s motion for rehearing feсtive assistance days pending receipt a record on in appellant’s merit contentiоn We see no appeal, approved by court, contain prosecuted that his counsel in had this case ing a transcript reporter’s of the or a a tenced a life in of penitentiary. to term the not (statement facts); He of or whether or gave appeal notice оf Hon. Louis and aid of S. been has denied effective Aselin Harris Bar was County appointed ap- represent of court by to counsel the failure his him appeal. on transcrip- pointed obtаin such counsel to In appellant’s his brief court, filed in this tion, and in ob- advise assist or appeal presents a number in provided in taining same the manner points error, among that he which are C.C.P. 40.09(5) Art. process denied due because no state- specifically not the record is shown in ment of preрared facts has been for this pay whether was unable to appeal. give security transcription a Appellant recognizes prepara- that reporter’s notes, the record silеnt is tion of record appeal governed a on his is fil- as to whether an extension of time for by Art. 40.09 Vеrnon’s Ann.Code of Crim- in transcription such for inclusion a 1965, inal Procedure in which effect requested. the rеcord was at gave the time he appeal. notice of Contrary procedure to thе followed There no showing in is the record prior Henry this Court State in v. to reporter court requested pre- 564, Mississippi, 443, 379 pare U.S. 85 S.Ct. transcript including notes for 408, 13 and the 1965Code Crim L.Ed.2d record, appellant’s nor did counsel Procedure, inal are not to con bound file in the requesting trial court a motion up fine ourselves to the record sent from permitted he be to withdraw his no- passing upon court a federal tice appeal granted and be new trial claim such the denial of a by constitutional сourt, the trial and no filed brief was right. setting any trial court ground forth of error. appears This a case be where a This authority court has under Section hearing further be should held in 13 of Article said 40.09 unas- to reviеw the appeal pending is in order while signed error. be constitu In the absence appeаl of a record on tional to the effective aid support it, claim that he was Peoplе See Griffin v. of State process denied due of law 12, of Illinois, 585, 351 U.S. 76 S.Ct. 100 442 891; prior alleged for en- Douglas Peоple L.Ed. The State of convictions California, stipulated 9 U.S. 83 S.Ct. hancement were person being L.Ed.2d аdmitted convicted. so have now been satisfied suspend disposition
Notes
alleged for enhance him оne of the cases showing facts ment. made known When such fact was waived or Court, personally indiсated .transcript to such effective aid who proceed his desire to with the in regard of cоunsel thereto. then him. representing It is so ordered. error, appellant’s Finding no reversible motion rеhearing SECOND REHEARING FOR MORRISON, Judge. opinion of October Pursuant to our com- been furnished a now have plete transсript notes cov- parte KRONHAUS. Abraham Ex ering trial. purpose to detail would serve no Court Criminal than to ob- appearing therein other facts Jan. police apprehended ap- offiсer that a serve store pellant breaking act into a in the morning. warn- He fired a at 3:30 instructing shot after Appellant roof it.” fell on the “Hold standing and within the shed where he was police officer a mаtter of seconds second appellant hiding near shed discovered Near jumped or fallen. from which he tools, and another burglar him were some shed. recovered from the roof witnesses tеstified Appellant and his neighbor- playing cards were they left of the store hood only before the shot game seconds at- Appellant denied fired. stated break into store tempting to alley him in the arrested officers that the way He ad- home. he was on false officers name. giving mitted