GEORGE PERLAM ALVIS, PETITIONER-APPELLANT,
v.
WILLIAM G. KIMBROUGH, CHIEF OF POLICE OF CORAL GABLES, FLORIDA, RESPONDENT-APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that the district court abused its discretion by denying a continuance when the appellant was institutionalized and unable to testify.
Appellant sought habeas corpus relief, and on remand, the district court found waiver of counsel rights based on a general statement. The appellant's …
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Johnson V. Zerbst Standard For Waiver cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM:
On the previous appeal of this habeas corpus case, we vacated and remanded on the denial of counsel issue. We left the question of waiver of the right to counsel to be settled on remand. Alvis v. Kimbrough, 5 Cir., 1971, 446 F. 2d 548.
On the subsequent federal hearing the district court, after hearing the testimony of the municipal judge, concluded:
“This court finds that a statement appropriately made by a proper official in a municipal court to a small group of defendants prior to trial as to the right of counsel is sufficient where the statement can be heard by all and each understands and voluntarily and intelligently waives such right. There should be no requirement that each individual defendant be separately advised of his rights if the other criteria [are] met.”
We agree that this conclusion conforms to the requirements laid down in Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U.S. 458, 58 S.Ct. 1019, 82 L.Ed. 1461 (1938), for establishing waiver. The district court denied habeas relief after making findings of fact and conclusions of law adverse to appellant.
Ordinarily this would be the end of the matter. However, counsel for appellant moved for a continuance prior to the hearing on the ground that appellant had been committed to a mental institution and was not available to testify. This appears without contradiction.
The test for determining error in the failure to grant a continuance is whether an abuse of discretion appears on the part of the district court. We think the fact of appellant’s confinement and resultant inability to testify and possibly contradict the testimony of the only witness against him on waiver amounts to an abuse of discretion.
We therefore vacate the judgment of the district court and remand for proceedings not inconsistent herewith.
Vacated and remanded.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U.S. 458 (U.S. 1938)
- Isbell Enters., Inc. v. Citizens Cas. Co. OF NEW York, 431 F.2d 409 (5th Cir. 1970)
- Alvis v. Kimbrough, 446 F.2d 548 (5th Cir. 1971)