Brazzell v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas

Brazzell v. State

266 S.W. 1119, 99 Tex. Crim. 33, 1925 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 34

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas

DecidedJanuary 28, 1925

DocketNo. 8193

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 266 S.W. 1119 (Brazzell 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

Brazzell v. State, 266 S.W. 1119, 99 Tex. Crim. 33, 1925 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 34 (Tex. 1925).

Pincite

Opinion

HAWKINS, J.

So many requests of this character were being presented this court found it necessary in Hickman v. State, 93 Tex. Or. R. 407, 247 S. W. 518, to make an announcement of the principle controlling our attitude towards them as follows: “* * * Second motions for rehearing will not be considered by this court, nor leave granted to file same, unless there be a sufficient showing in such application of the fact that in its original opinion, or opinion upon the motion for rehearing, the court has omitted to consider some matter, which, from the statement thereof in such ap^ plication, is made to appear to this court so vital to the proper disposition of the case as to lead us to conclude that we erred in failing to consider same, or else such application must present such facts, arguments, or citations in reference to some matter decided in the original .opinion or that upon rehearing, as will lead this court from an examination of the application to conclude that our decision in such regard was so far wrong as that its correction would entitle the appellant to a second rehearing.” We have examined the present request in the light of the rule thus announced. No matter was omitted from consideration in our former opinions. The arguments and citations upon the subjects which are thought by appellant to have been erroneously disposed of have been again examined, and our views have remained unchanged. The request to file the second motion is denied.

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

HAWKINS, J.

So many requests of this character were being presented this court found it necessary in Hickman v. State, 93 Tex. Or. R. 407, 247 S. W. 518, to make an announcement of the principle controlling our attitude towards them as follows: “* * * Second motions for rehearing will not be considered by this court, nor leave granted to file same, unless there be a sufficient showing in such application of the fact that in its original opinion, or opinion upon the motion for rehearing, the court has omitted to consider some matter, which, from the statement thereof in such ap^ plication, is made to appear to this court so vital to the proper disposition of the case as to lead us to conclude that we erred in failing to consider same, or else such application must present such facts, arguments, or citations in reference to some matter decided in the original .opinion or that upon rehearing, as will lead this court from an examination of the application to conclude that our decision in such regard was so far wrong as that its correction would entitle the appellant to a second rehearing.” We have examined the present request in the light of the rule thus announced. No matter was omitted from consideration in our former opinions. The arguments and citations upon the subjects which are thought by appellant to have been erroneously disposed of have been again examined, and our views have remained unchanged. The request to file the second motion is denied.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

266 S.W. 1119, 99 Tex. Crim. 33, 1925 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 34, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/brazzell-v-state-texcrimapp-1925.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack