Legal Opinion

Burgess v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas

Decided September 18, 1991No. 0711-90, 1090-90PublishedCited by 189 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION ON APPELLANTS’ PETITIONS FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW

CLINTON, Judge.

These petitions for discretionary review were granted, and consolidated, so that we could review rulings of two panels of the Fourteenth Court of Appeals upholding convictions of defendants who were allowed to represent themselves despite the failure of each to execute a written waiver of the right to counsel under Article 1.051(f) and (g), V.A.C.C.P. We are once again called upon in these causes to balance the accused’s Sixth Amendment right to counsel against his independent Sixth Amendment right not to have counsel…

2Cases cited18 opinions

  1. Faretta v. CaliforniaSupreme Court of the United States · 1975
  2. Adams v. United States Ex Rel. McCannSupreme Court of the United States · 1943
  3. Singer v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1965
  4. Webb v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1976
  5. Blankenship v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1984

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

3Cited by189 opinions

  1. Lane v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1996
  2. Ramos v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1996
  3. Goffney v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1992
  4. Carroll v. State, Texas Court of Appeals, 1st District (Houston)2005
  5. Oliver v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1994

184 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