Hollins v. Estelle

Fifth Circuit

Hollins v. Estelle

503 F.2d 1373, 1974 U.S. App. LEXIS 6057

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedNovember 14, 1974

DocketNo. 74-2190

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 503 F.2d 1373 (Hollins v. Estelle) 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

Hollins v. Estelle, 503 F.2d 1373, 1974 U.S. App. LEXIS 6057 (5th Cir. 1974).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

When this case was previously before this court, we remanded for an evidentiary hearing to determine whether appellee voluntarily waived his objections to standing trial in jail garb. Hollins v. Beto, 467 F.2d 951 (5th Cir. 1972). On remand the State of Texas stipulated that no such waiver had voluntarily been made, but took issue with any retroactive application of our trial-in-jail-garb rulings in Brooks v. Texas, 381 F.2d 619 (5th Cir. 1967) and Hernandez v. Beto, 443 F.2d 634 (5th Cir. 1971). The State also contended that any error in Hollins’ trial because of his clothing was harmless. See, Smith v. Estelle, 498 F.2d 631 (5th Cir. 1974).

The district court correctly applied Brooks and Hernandez to this action. Williams v. Estelle, 500 F.2d 206 (5th Cir. 1974). The court also found that this error was not, beyond any reasonable doubt, harmless. In light of the total record .developed at this trial, we cannot say that his determination was clearly erroneous. The burning issue was identification. Although several witnesses identified Hollins as the culprit, their testimony is not so compelling as to leave this court with an abiding conviction that the district judge reached the wrong result.

On remand the State should be accorded a reasonable time within which to retry petitioner.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM:

When this case was previously before this court, we remanded for an evidentiary hearing to determine whether appellee voluntarily waived his objections to standing trial in jail garb. Hollins v. Beto, 467 F.2d 951 (5th Cir. 1972). On remand the State of Texas stipulated that no such waiver had voluntarily been made, but took issue with any retroactive application of our trial-in-jail-garb rulings in Brooks v. Texas, 381 F.2d 619 (5th Cir. 1967) and Hernandez v. Beto, 443 F.2d 634 (5th Cir. 1971). The State also contended that any error in Hollins’ trial because of his clothing was harmless. See, Smith v. Estelle, 498 F.2d 631 (5th Cir. 1974).

The district court correctly applied Brooks and Hernandez to this action. Williams v. Estelle, 500 F.2d 206 (5th Cir. 1974). The court also found that this error was not, beyond any reasonable doubt, harmless. In light of the total record .developed at this trial, we cannot say that his determination was clearly erroneous. The burning issue was identification. Although several witnesses identified Hollins as the culprit, their testimony is not so compelling as to leave this court with an abiding conviction that the district judge reached the wrong result.

On remand the State should be accorded a reasonable time within which to retry petitioner.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

503 F.2d 1373, 1974 U.S. App. LEXIS 6057, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hollins-v-estelle-ca5-1974.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack