Legal Opinion

Blankenship v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas

Decided July 18, 1984No. 796-83PublishedCited by 197 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION ON APPELLANT’S PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW

MILLER, Judge.

“He who represents himself has a fool for a client.”

While there may be resounding truth to the old proverb, today we must determine if the trial judge’s jealous protection of the appellant’s Sixth Amendment right to counsel demonstrated by his refusal to allow pro se representation was in error. We find that it was and reverse appellant’s conviction.

Appellant was convicted by a jury of aggravated robbery and his punishment was assessed at 35 years confinement. The El Paso Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction in…

2Cases cited20 opinions

  1. Johnson v. ZerbstSupreme Court of the United States · 1938
  2. Faretta v. CaliforniaSupreme Court of the United States · 1975
  3. Illinois v. AllenSupreme Court of the United States · 1970
  4. Adams v. United States Ex Rel. McCannSupreme Court of the United States · 1943
  5. McKaskle v. WigginsSupreme Court of the United States · 1984

15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by197 opinions

  1. McDuff v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1997
  2. Collier v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1997
  3. Hubbard v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1987
  4. Burgess v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1991
  5. Johnson v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1988

192 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API