Court Opinion

ID: 9686191
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 15:33:18.482745+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:18:15.873080
License: Public Domain

TATE, Justice
(concurring).
I concur in the majority opinion, but I have reservations with regard to the affirmance of the conviction of Tommy Ray Johnson.
Johnson may have been denied his right to effective counsel, since (following the death of his retained counsel) counsel was ■appointed to represent him only on the morning of the trial, and his counsel’s immediate motion for a continuance was denied. This might readily be considered inadequate time to prepare a defense for an accused on trial for a felony (and who was in fact sentenced to nine years in the state penitentiary).
The record shows that the accused Johnson and his co-defendants had been arraigned and had pleaded not guilty on March 17, 1971, about three months before their trial of June 11. The record shows that their counsel at this time was the late Larry Uter. At the arraignment, they were represented by the “Hon. W. Lee Overton on behalf of their lawyer, Hon. Larry Uter.”
Mr. Uter died on May 6, 1971. The three Tennant co-defendants showed up with their retained counsel on the trial date of June 11. The minutes further show that, on this date, the trial court appointed W. Lee Overton to represent Johnson. See also Tr. 85. Overton immediately moved for a severance and for a continuance. These motions were denied.
Johnson and the other defendants were forced to go to trial immediately, with ten members of the jury being selected that Friday. The rest of the jury was selected and the entire trial completed on Monday, June 14th, after the weekend.
Normally, the circumstance that Attorney Overton, as an accommodation for the actually retained counsel, stood "on behalf of’ such counsel at arraignment, would not justify the court as considering him apprised of the defenses so as to permit Mr. Overton to be assigned on the morning of the trial to represent Johnson, unless such newly appointed counsel is granted a continuance to investigate and prepare a defense. However, the transcript of proceedings shows that, on the morning of the trial, Mr. Overton accepted the appoint*961ment and did not object to the trial judge’s comment that the appointment had really been made at the arraignment three months earlier.1
Additionally, the record shows that the only motion made by the other defendants (i. e., for severance) was immediately made by newly appointed counsel. It was denied. It is not suggested that counsel was deprived of the opportunity to file other motions by the denial of a continuance. Considering also that a weekend intervened between the appointment and the actual production of witnesses, no real and actual prejudice in the preparation of a defense may be reflected by the record.
I will therefore concur for the time as to this point, but with great reservations.
Again, the writer is uneasy about our upholding the trial of all accused clothed in work jump-suits, the “prison garb” issued by the Baton Rouge parish prison. As the majority recognizes, trial in identifiable demeaning attire may be considered prejudicial as destructive of the presumption of innocence to which all accused before our courts are entitled.
I will concur in our holding that this record does not justify our holding the accused so prejudiced in the instant proceedings, but only in view of the observations of the trial court strongly suggesting that, for the times and in the area, many other citizens were normally so attired — although, for most areas of the State, people do not come to court so informally attired.

. See Tr. 85, proceedings of June 11, 1971:
“BY THE COURT: * * * Mr. Lee Overton is appointed to defend Tommy-Ray Johnson. Reference is made to the minutes of the Court March 17, 1971 when he accepted the appointment. “MR. OVERTON: Thank you, Your Honor.”