3 - Voice For The Defense Online

KENNETH YORKO, No. A14-83-058-CR (14th--Hou.), Sale of Obscene
Material Conviction Affirmed, Judge Ellis, Panel
Opinion, 10-27-83
INDIGENCY ON APPEAL: D challenges TJC's denial of request for free
transcript. No statement of facts in record on appeal, Stipulated
evidence puts cost of transcript at $4,500 to $5,000, Trial counsel
was paid by someone other than D. D's affidavit of indigency was
admitted without objection, It showed: D's weekly salary is $350; his
assets include a $500 car and a $334 bank balance. CA found no error
in TIC'S refusal to provide transcript because: (1) affidavit was
notarized by D1s attorney and is therefore void, and (2) affidavit
was not dated.
JOHN MALLARD, No. 2-82-158-CR (Fort Worth), Murder Conviction
Affirmed; Judge Jordon, Panel Opinion, 11/2/83
MUST STATE REVEAL SOURCE OF INFORMANT'S INFORMATION? CA says no.
m: While D was in jail on other charges, unnamed informant told
police D killed X, While awaiting trial D sent unsolicited letter to
DA admitting murder of % and describing how he had hidden murder
weapon in police car on night of arrest. X's employer paid $25,000
reward. D argued he was entitled to name of informant and source of
information given informant. Record revealed informant did not know D,
was not a participant in crime, was not present at time of murder, and
was not a material witness. Held: under Supreme Court and Texas cases
disclosure of informant need not be revealed under these facts; to
require disclosure of source of informant's information might reveal his
identity and allow D to do indirectly what he could not do directly.
JERRY McCULLAR, No. 2-83-032-CR (Fort Worth), Probation Revocation
Reformed, Judge Hughes, Panel Opinion, 11/2/83
CAN CONCURRENT SENTENCES BE MADE TO RUN CONSECUTIVELY AFTER REVOCATION
OF PROBATION? CA says No. Facts: D pled guilty as result of plea
bargain to three felonies and was placed on 10 years probation, Follow-
ing a hearing probation was revoked and D was sentenced to 25 years
110 each for two felonies and 5 for the remaining]. Held: Although OK
to cumulate Dts sentence at revocation hearing with sentence for
offense which caused the revocation, it is fundamentally unfair for trial
judge to announce the 3 original sentences would rqn concurrently and
then change it later so that these 3 sentences would be stacked. "The
vice of tks procedure encourages a guilty plea with a promise not kept ."
WILLIAM LOVELACE, No. 05-61-00804-CR (Dallas), DWI Conviction ~eversed,
Judge Vance, Panel Opinion, 10127183
REVERSIBLE JURY ARGUMENT: Facts: D's car struck rear of Mustang and
car caught on fire resulting in both occupants' receiving second and
third degree burns on hands, legs and faces. [Both teenagers received
settlements from Ford on their defective product claims.] D presented
evidence that he had not had a drink at least two hours before accident,
February 1984/VOICEfor rheDefense SD-27