FRANCISCO CADENA, PETITIONER-APPELLANT,
v.
W. J. ESTELLE, JR., DIRECTOR, TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, 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.
Any error in arraigning the appellant without counsel was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt because no substantial prejudice occurred.
Appellant was arraigned in a state proceeding without counsel and pleaded not guilty. Counsel was appointed thereafter. The only defense waived was th…
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 Harmless Constitutional Error cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant, arraigned in a state proceeding without counsel, appeals the denial of habeas corpus, asserting that arraignment was a “critical stage” of the state proceeding at which the presence of counsel was required. Hamilton v. Alabama, 368 U.S. 52, 82 S.Ct. 157, 7 L.Ed.2d 114 (1961). An Alabama arraignment was there held to be such a critical stage in view of the great number of available defenses waived or lost if not there asserted, defenses such as insanity, pleas in abatement, and challenges to the composition of the grand jury. The Court recognized, however, that “[a]rraignment has differing consequences in the various jurisdictions.” 368 U.S. at 54, n. 4, 82 S.Ct. at 158.
In Texas, by contrast, the only defense waived by appellant’s uncounselled “Not guilty” plea at his arraignment was that the name on the indictment was not appellant’s true name — a defense which he has never suggested he might have asserted. At appellant’s arraignment he pled “Not guilty,” asserted indigency, and was appointed counsel who represented him thenceforward. Assuming arguendo that a Texas arraignment is a “critical stage,” we have held in similar circumstances that even on direct appeal a defendant may question failure to provide counsel only where potential substantial prejudice inheres. United States v. Lacy, 446 F. 2d 511 (5th Cir. 1971). In view of appellant’s “Not guilty” plea, of the immediate appointment of counsel, and of the minor nature of the sole defense waived— the assertion of which would doubtless have resulted only in the correction of the indictment — we can conceive of no such prejudice here.
The Court, moreover, has indicated that the doctrine of harmless constitutional error applies in somewhat similar circumstances, Moore v. Illinois, 434 U.S. 220, 232, 98 S.Ct. 458, 54 L.Ed.2d 424 (1977). We hold that it applies here, and that in the circumstances presented here any error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.
AFFIRMED.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Hamilton v. Alabama, 368 U.S. 52 (U.S. 1961)
- Moore v. Illinois, 434 U.S. 220 (U.S. 1977)
- United States v. Lacy, 446 F.2d 511 (5th Cir. 1971)