Mills v. State
Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
DOUGLAS, Judge.
This is an appeal from a conviction for the offense of possession of marihuana The jury assessed the punishment at ten years.
Appellant contends that he was denied effective assistance of counsel in violation of the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments of the Constitution of the United States.
Appellant had counsel of his choice. Any incompetency of retained counsel cannot be imputed to the State. Erdelyan v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 481 S.W.2d 843; Davis v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 429 S.W.2d 895.
We have carefully examined the record and cannot conclude there was ineffective assistance…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Alex Popeko, Fred Del Genio and Thomas Edward Harty v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1961
- Davis v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1968
- Trotter v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1971
- Erdelyan v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1972
3Cited by9 opinions
- Elizalde v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1974
- Guerrero v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1972
- Harrison v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1977
- Curtis v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1973
- Rodriguez v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1972
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.