Bottom v. State

860 S.W.2d 266, 1993 Tex. App. LEXIS 2355, 1993 WL 320978
CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas
DecidedAugust 25, 1993
Docket2-92-239-CR
StatusPublished
Cited by34 cases

This text of 860 S.W.2d 266 (Bottom v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Bottom v. State, 860 S.W.2d 266, 1993 Tex. App. LEXIS 2355, 1993 WL 320978 (Tex. Ct. App. 1993).

Opinion

OPINION

FARRIS, Justice.

A jury convicted Blane Adair Bottom of aggravated sexual assault of a child younger than fourteen years of age, see TexPenal Code Ann. § 22.021 (Vernon 1989), and sen- *267 teneed him to fifty-years imprisonment. Bottom appeals, claiming the court abused its discretion in continuing the trial in his absence. Because Bottom was present when the jury was selected and his absence from the courtroom was voluntary, we overrule his point of error and affirm the judgment.

At this trial, Bottom was present during voir dire, seating and swearing of the jury, presentation of the State’s case in chief, and sentencing. After the State rested, defense counsel informed the court Bottom was not in the courtroom, but in the hospital, because he had attempted suicide, or some harm to himself. Defense counsel requested, and the court denied, a continuance. The court did, however, order a competency hearing from which Bottom was found competent to stand trial.

When a defendant voluntarily absents himself after pleading to the indictment, or after the jury has been selected, the trial may proceed to its conclusion. Tex.Code CrimJProcAnn. art. 33.03 (Vernon 1989); Gonzales v. State, 515 S.W.2d 920 (Tex.Crim.App.1974).

The competent evidence shows Bottom was not absent because of some sudden unexpected medical emergency, but because he chose to ingest large quantities of aspirin and arthritis medication. Because Bottom chose to act in this way, his absence was voluntary. Because Bottom acted voluntarily and because he cannot avoid trial by intentionally disabling himself, we overrule his point of error.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Related

Derek Steve Banks v. the State of Texas
Court of Appeals of Texas, 2025
Richard Alan Curlee v. the State of Texas
Court of Appeals of Texas, 2025
Danson Trotti v. the State of Texas
Court of Appeals of Texas, 2023
Jose Salomechavez v. State
Court of Appeals of Texas, 2020
Anthony Autrie Johnson v. State
Court of Appeals of Texas, 2020
State v. Sides
Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 2019
Joe David Moon v. State
Court of Appeals of Texas, 2018
Kenny Fernell Graves v. State
Court of Appeals of Texas, 2015
Edgar Garces Diaz v. State
Court of Appeals of Texas, 2015
Anthony, John Dennis Clayton
Court of Appeals of Texas, 2015
Shawn Smith v. State
494 S.W.3d 243 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 2015)
Sharon Lee Downes v. State
Court of Appeals of Texas, 2014
Brown, David Earl
Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 2014
Peacock v. State
77 So. 3d 1285 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2012)
Donald Houston Hodges v. State
Court of Appeals of Texas, 2010
Hollis Grizzard, III v. State
Court of Appeals of Texas, 2008
Ronald Michael Hill v. State
Court of Appeals of Texas, 2007
Marinos v. State
186 S.W.3d 167 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 2006)
Nicholas James Marinos v. State
Court of Appeals of Texas, 2006

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
860 S.W.2d 266, 1993 Tex. App. LEXIS 2355, 1993 WL 320978, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bottom-v-state-texapp-1993.