# Hill v. State

> Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · May 5, 1965 · 393 S.W.2d 901

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9863012

## Case

- **Full name:** Elbert HILL, Appellant, v. the STATE of Texas, Appellee
- **Court:** Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas
- **Decided:** May 5, 1965
- **Citations:** 393 S.W.2d 901; 1965 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 1020
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Morrison
- **Judges:** Morrison, Woodley, McDonald
- **Cited by:** 43 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9863012

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that counsel was not ineffective merely because he was suspended from the practice of law for nonpayment of State Bar dues as counsel continued to be licensed during the suspension and his status was reinstated to that which he occupied prior to the delinquency
- holding that failure to pay bar dues does not constitute denial of counsel

## Opinion text

MORRISON, Judge
(dissenting).
I respectfully dissent to the affirmance of these convictions and to the overruling of Martinez v. State, 167 Tex.Cr.R. 97 , 318 S.W.2d 66 . It will only require a short research by any member of the bar to pass upon the soundness of such opinion. It is vital to remember that at Martinez’ first trial there were no formal or informal bills of exception and no objection to the Court’s charge. Appellant’s brief on original submission in a death penalty conviction consisted of two pages of generalities. It was only upon rehearing that the writer discovered that this Court had so lightly affirmed a death penalty conviction.
Upon retrial Martinez was represented not only by a legally licensed lawyer, but by one of the most capable in our field, as is demonstrated by the opinion which I prepared for this Court. Martinez v. State, 169 Tex.Cr.R. 229 , 333 S.W.2d 370 . Every accused and especially those in death penalty cases is entitled to, as we said in Brown v. State, 168 Tex.Cr.R. 67 , 323 S.W.2d 954 , “at least one tolerably fair trial.” This Martinez did not secure at his first trial and this he did get on his second trial. I retreat not one step from what I said in both cases.
Aside from this, it is quite clear from the reasoning in McKinzie v. Ellis, 5 Cir., 287 F.2d 549 , that these convictions should not stand.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9863012. Public record. Not legal advice.