Jimmy Delano Finch v. State of Texas and Sheriff of Harris County

Fifth Circuit

Jimmy Delano Finch v. State of Texas and Sheriff of Harris County

387 F.2d 366

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedDecember 21, 1967

Docket24420_1

StatusPublished

This text of 387 F.2d 366 (Jimmy Delano Finch v. State of Texas and Sheriff of Harris County) 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

Jimmy Delano Finch v. State of Texas and Sheriff of Harris County, 387 F.2d 366 (5th Cir. 1967).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Appellant, Jimmy Delano Finch, was convicted by a jury of burglary on May 13, 1965. Though he had previously advised his retained counsel that he would plead guilty, he elected just before trial to plead not guilty and to discharge counsel. The trial judge promptly appointed the same attorney. In this habeas corpus proceeding, appellant attacks his conviction on the ground that he had ineffective assistance of counsel.

Appellant admitted during the hearing in the district court that he conferred with counsel four or five times prior to trial but did not express a desire to discharge him until the day of trial, shortly before its commencement. He contended that counsel failed to call several witnesses after he had requested that they be called. Counsel testified that the witnesses could not have helped appellant. As to the adequacy of his representation, he testified that he conferred with appellant several times and obtained three continuances prior to trial. The district court correctly found that appellant’s attempt to discharge counsel at trial was simply another dilatory tactic employed after he was unable to obtain a fourth continuance and that there was no merit to his allegation that counsel had rendered ineffective assistance. The district court’s judgment denying the petition for writ of habeas corpus is hereby

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM:

Appellant, Jimmy Delano Finch, was convicted by a jury of burglary on May 13, 1965. Though he had previously advised his retained counsel that he would plead guilty, he elected just before trial to plead not guilty and to discharge counsel. The trial judge promptly appointed the same attorney. In this habeas corpus proceeding, appellant attacks his conviction on the ground that he had ineffective assistance of counsel.

Appellant admitted during the hearing in the district court that he conferred with counsel four or five times prior to trial but did not express a desire to discharge him until the day of trial, shortly before its commencement. He contended that counsel failed to call several witnesses after he had requested that they be called. Counsel testified that the witnesses could not have helped appellant. As to the adequacy of his representation, he testified that he conferred with appellant several times and obtained three continuances prior to trial. The district court correctly found that appellant’s attempt to discharge counsel at trial was simply another dilatory tactic employed after he was unable to obtain a fourth continuance and that there was no merit to his allegation that counsel had rendered ineffective assistance. The district court’s judgment denying the petition for writ of habeas corpus is hereby

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

387 F.2d 366, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jimmy-delano-finch-v-state-of-texas-and-sheriff-of-harris-county-ca5-1967.