JOHNNY HOLLINS, PETITIONER-APPELLEE,
v.
DR. GEORGE J. BETO, DIRECTOR, TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, RESPONDENT-APPELLANT
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 a prisoner's trial in prison clothing is inherently unfair, but relief requires showing the defendant did not waive the issue by failing to object.
A state prisoner sought habeas corpus relief, alleging he was compelled to stand trial in prison clothing. The state argued the prisoner waived this c…
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 Waiver Of Rights cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM:
The State of Texas appeals from an order of the district court granting the petition of a state prisoner for the writ of habeas corpus. We vacate and remand.
In a lengthy habeas petition filed below appellee alleged numerous grounds for relief including a contention that the state compelled him to stand trial dressed in prison clothing, despite his requests to change into street clothing. The state responded that the appellee’s failure to object at trial constituted a waiver, citing this Court’s opinion in Hernandez v. Beto, 5 Cir. 1971, 443 F. 2d 634. The district court, without holding an evidentiary hearing, granted the writ, allowing the state to retry appellee within 90 days. The state appeals.
It is inherently unfair to try a defendant in prison garb. Brooks v. Texas, 5 Cir. 1967, 381 F. 2d 619. This fact alone, however, is not sufficient to set aside a trial. Garcia v. Beto, 5 Cir. 1971, 452 F. 2d 655; Hernandez v. Beto, supra. In Hernandez, this Court stated that a defendant and his attorney must make known that the defendant desires to be tried in street clothing before the state can be held accountable for his being tried in jail clothing. In that case, an evidentiary hearing revealed that “counsel did not object to the jail clothing because, from past experience, he thought that a motion for change of attire would have been a frivolous motion”. 443 F. 2d at 637. We concluded that a voluntary waiver had not been shown, but noted that each case must be considered in its own factual context. Later, in Garcia, this Court reversed a district court order granting habeas relief, finding in the record that trial counsel did not object to the jail clothing because he intended to utilize the defendant’s appearance as an element of his trial strategy.
In this present case the record does not show that appellee objected to being tried in jail clothing; nor does it show an express waiver on his part. The district court erred in granting relief without considering whether there was a voluntary waiver. We reverse and remand for an evidentiary hearing on this issue and, if necessary, further consideration by the district court of the other issues raised in the petition.
Reversed and remanded.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
United States v. Casey, 540 F.2d 811 (5th Cir. 1976)
-
Williams v. Estelle, 500 F.2d 206 (5th Cir. 1974)
-
Hollins v. Estelle, 503 F.2d 1373 (5th Cir. 1974)
Authorities Cited
- Isbell Enters., Inc. v. Citizens Cas. Co. OF NEW York, 431 F.2d 409 (5th Cir. 1970)
- Hernandez v. Beto, 443 F.2d 634 (5th Cir. 1971)
- Brooks v. State OF Tex., 381 F.2d 619 (5th Cir. 1967)
- Garcia v. Beto, 452 F.2d 655 (5th Cir. 1971)