Harold Orlando Moore v. Dr. George J. Beto, Director, Texas Department of Corrections

Fifth Circuit

Harold Orlando Moore v. Dr. George J. Beto, Director, Texas Department of Corrections

458 F.2d 386

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedMarch 28, 1972

Docket71-2444

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 458 F.2d 386 (Harold Orlando Moore v. Dr. George J. Beto, Director, Texas Department of Corrections) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Harold Orlando Moore v. Dr. George J. Beto, Director, Texas Department of Corrections, 458 F.2d 386 (5th Cir. 1972).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

The single issue presented by this appeal is whether the State of Texas furnished the petitioner-appellant with such an ineffective counsel for his assistance as to deny his rights under the Sixth Amendment. We are pointed to eight separate areas of pre-trial and trial conduct, which are asserted individually and in their cumulative impact to demonstrate counsel’s ineffectiveness. Applying the ad hoc rule of this Circuit, we cannot say that the conduct of appellant’s trial counsel was shocking to the conscience of this court. United States v. Mancuso, 423 F.2d 23 (5th Cir. 1970). The Sixth Amendment does not guarantee an attorney who will secure subjectively satisfactory results for those accused of crime, nor does it guarantee errorless counsel or the best counsel *387 available. Loper v. Beto, 440 F.2d 934 (5th Cir. 1971.) The performance of counsel is not to be judged by hindsight. Rather, an accused is entitled to such counsel as is reasonably likely to render and who does render reasonably effective assistance, MacKenna v. Ellis, 280 F.2d 592 (5th Cir. 1960). Cf. King v. Beto, 5th Cir., 429 F.2d 221 and Chalk v. Beto, 429 F.2d 225 (5th Cir. 1970). The performance of trial counsel furnished to the petitioner-appellant here passes these tests.

Affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM:

The single issue presented by this appeal is whether the State of Texas furnished the petitioner-appellant with such an ineffective counsel for his assistance as to deny his rights under the Sixth Amendment. We are pointed to eight separate areas of pre-trial and trial conduct, which are asserted individually and in their cumulative impact to demonstrate counsel’s ineffectiveness. Applying the ad hoc rule of this Circuit, we cannot say that the conduct of appellant’s trial counsel was shocking to the conscience of this court. United States v. Mancuso, 423 F.2d 23 (5th Cir. 1970). The Sixth Amendment does not guarantee an attorney who will secure subjectively satisfactory results for those accused of crime, nor does it guarantee errorless counsel or the best counsel *387 available. Loper v. Beto, 440 F.2d 934 (5th Cir. 1971.) The performance of counsel is not to be judged by hindsight. Rather, an accused is entitled to such counsel as is reasonably likely to render and who does render reasonably effective assistance, MacKenna v. Ellis, 280 F.2d 592 (5th Cir. 1960). Cf. King v. Beto, 5th Cir., 429 F.2d 221 and Chalk v. Beto, 429 F.2d 225 (5th Cir. 1970). The performance of trial counsel furnished to the petitioner-appellant here passes these tests.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

458 F.2d 386, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/harold-orlando-moore-v-dr-george-j-beto-director-texas-department-of-ca5-1972.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack