Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

673 S.W.2d 174

State v. Armes

Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee · decided 1984-04-09

Cited by 6 later decisions — most recently January 2003

6 state decisions

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1984-04-09

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

TATUM, Judge,

¶1concurring.

¶2I concur that it was error for the trial judge to accept Sexton’s guilty plea and statement of fact in the presence of the jury. I also think that it was error when the trial judge refused to permit the defendant to cross-examine the State’s witness with the previous statement.

¶3I do not think that it was error for the trial judge to permit the defendant to go to trial without a lawyer. As noted in the main opinion, the trial judge warned the defendant of the consequences of self-representation. The defendant did not claim to be an indigent; the record suggests that he was not. The only reason that the defendant did not have counsel was his refusal to employ counsel. I do not understand that the trial judge is required to appoint an attorney for a non-indigent defendant who has had ample time in which to retain an attorney.

¶4I think that the defendant waived error when he failed to object to the State’s argument concerning the armed robbery conviction in Kentucky.

¶5I concur in the result.

/673/sw2d/174 · .json · Public domain