Court Opinion

ID: 9766264
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 04:38:45.861962+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:30:20.836209
License: Public Domain

WOODLEY, Judge
(dissenting).
The majority opinion confuses the right to be represented by counsel, the right to have counsel appointed or furnished to an accused unable to employ or obtain cotinsel because of indigency, and the requirement under the facts before the Court in Harvey v. State of Mississippi, 340 F.2d 263, under which the Fifth Circuit Court held that the failure of notice to Harvey of his right to the assistance of counsel rendered his incarceration constitutionally improper.
There was no question of indigeney in Harvey v. State of Mississippi. It is clear to the writer that had a fine been assessed, (which Harvey expected' and believed to be the only punishment for the offense to which he pleaded guilty) the conviction would not have been set aside for the reason quoted- in the majority opinion.
It is also clear to the writer that Harvey v. State of Mississippi does not require that the judge inform the defendant of his right to the assistance of counsel. So long as the defendant has notice or knows of this right it is immaterial whether he is so informed by the trial judge himself. It is not a matter of ritual, but of notice or knowledge.
Pizzitola v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 374 S.W.2d 446, cited in the majority opinion, relates *47to the lack of counsel to represent an indigent defendant in a misdemeanor case as denial of a fundamental right under the Supreme Court’s decision in Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335, 83 S.Ct. 792, 9 L.Ed.2d 799.
If it be the intention of the majority to overrule this decision they should so state. It is the view of the writer that the quoted holding in Harvey v. State of Mississippi, supra, does not require or warrant such action.
As to Ex Parte Ruckman and Ruckman, Tex.Cr.App., 392 S.W.2d 136, the opinion clearly shows that it “is not a case wherein Petitioners were not told of their right to counsel.”
There is no allegation or proof that appellant was not aware of her right to be represented by counsel before she pleaded guilty.
I respectfully dissent.