Court Opinion

ID: 9775175
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 18:47:06.623103+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:32:22.145608
License: Public Domain

ROBERTS, Judge
(concurring).
I concur in the result reached, but would add a few brief remarks concerning appellant’s grounds of error.
Throughout his brief, appellant refers to the fact that he was indicted and convicted of the crime as an accomplice. This is totally incorrect as the record clearly reflects that appellant was charged and convicted as a principal to the offense.
Also, the majority opinion correctly points out that there is no statute in our State which authorizes the discharge of the remaining principals if one principal is acquitted. The unsoundness of such a proposition is well illustrated by the very case we now face. Suppose that at the trial of the co-defendant Black, he showed that he was, in fact, a principal to the crime, but then raised an affirmative defense, such as duress. The point is, we cannot arbitrarily assume that the same exact evidence was presented to the jury in the Black trial as here, and therefore, since that jury found Black to be innocent, the jury in this case must have been wrong. The testimony in the Black trial is not before us; what we do have before us is a record which supports the verdict of guilty, in this case. Appellant himself testified at the punishment hearing that he was guilty of the offense charged. Such testimony is not easily overlooked.
I would further address myself to a ground raised by appellant which is not discussed by the majority. Appellant contends that he was denied the right to counsel at critical stages, i. e., while he was being detained pending trial. The record before us reflects that a capias was issued for appellant on July 9, 1971; the capias was executed with the arrest of appellant on August 3, 1971. On August 5, 1971, appellant swore that he was without funds to employ an attorney, and requested that one be appointed. Though the record does not contain a formal order appointing an attor*19ney, we do note that on August 19, 1971, appellant’s attorney filed a motion before the court. Appellant makes no contention that a lack of counsel from August 5 to August 19 deprived him of legal advice at any time or that interrogations took place at that time when he was without counsel. Also, it appears that this alleged error was never brought to the attention of the trial court.
I concur.