Araiza v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas

Araiza v. State

478 S.W.2d 537

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas

DecidedApril 5, 1972

DocketNo. 45193

StatusPublished

This text of 478 S.W.2d 537 (Araiza v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Araiza v. State, 478 S.W.2d 537 (Tex. 1972).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION

ONION, Presiding Judge.

This is an appeal from a conviction for felony theft where the punishment was assessed at 3 years.

On June 7, 1971 the appellant entered a plea of guilty before the court waiving trial by jury. She was duly admonished by the court before the plea was accepted. On June 24, 1971, apparently after a pre-sen-tence investigation, the court denied the appellant’s motion for probation and sentence was imposed.

The sole contention on appeal is that the trial court abused its discretion in refusing to grant probation. Appellant argues that all of her difficulties, past and present, with the law stem from her narcotic addiction and that she should be placed on probation and allowed to be enrolled in the “Methadone Program.”

“The question of whether an accused is entitled to probation, where the court assesses punishment, rests absolutely within the trial court’s discretion under the guideposts of the statute and no authority exists for the accused to require such clemency.” Martin v. State, 452 S.W.2d 481 (Tex.Cr.App.1970) and cases there cited. See also Kerry v. State, 452 S.W.2d 480 (Tex.Cr.App.1970).

The judgment is affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

OPINION

ONION, Presiding Judge.

This is an appeal from a conviction for felony theft where the punishment was assessed at 3 years.

On June 7, 1971 the appellant entered a plea of guilty before the court waiving trial by jury. She was duly admonished by the court before the plea was accepted. On June 24, 1971, apparently after a pre-sen-tence investigation, the court denied the appellant’s motion for probation and sentence was imposed.

The sole contention on appeal is that the trial court abused its discretion in refusing to grant probation. Appellant argues that all of her difficulties, past and present, with the law stem from her narcotic addiction and that she should be placed on probation and allowed to be enrolled in the “Methadone Program.”

“The question of whether an accused is entitled to probation, where the court assesses punishment, rests absolutely within the trial court’s discretion under the guideposts of the statute and no authority exists for the accused to require such clemency.” Martin v. State, 452 S.W.2d 481 (Tex.Cr.App.1970) and cases there cited. See also Kerry v. State, 452 S.W.2d 480 (Tex.Cr.App.1970).

The judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

478 S.W.2d 537, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/araiza-v-state-texcrimapp-1972.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack