Fred Postel v. Dr. George J. Beto, Director

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“"It is the settled rule in this Court that the failure of the state trial court to advise a convicted defendant of his right to appeal is no violation of constitutional rights unless it knows or has reason to know that he wishes to appeal and knows or has reason to know that he is an indigent. Johnson v. Wainwright, 5 Cir., 1972, 456 F.2d 1200 ; Beto v. Martin, 5 Cir., 1968, 396 F.2d 432 ; Worts v. Dutton, 5 Cir., 1968, 395 F.2d 341 . Neither of these two conditions were met. "Petitioner's second ground for appeal is the claim of ineffectiveness of his retained counsel by his failure to appear for sentencing and advise petitioner of his right to appeal. As this inescapably involved the question of state action for errors or omission of retained counsel this case has been held pending our en banc decision in Fitzgerald v. Estelle, 5 Cir., 1974, 505 F.2d 1334 . In line with the holding in this case we have carefully examined the record and determined that the District Court had ample basis for concluding that the actions of retained counsel did not operate to deprive the trial of fundamental fairness as required by the Fourteenth Amendment and that he was not less than reasonably effective in violation of the Sixth Amendment."”

quoted by 3 later decisions, including Hubbard v. State, 440 F. Supp. 1037 - Perez v. Wainwright

“In Postel v. Beto, 508 F.2d 679 (5th Cir. 1975), the petitioner argued that he was denied his right to appeal since his retained counsel was not present at sentencing and failed to advise him of this right.”

quoted by 1 later decision, including Hubbard v. State