Daggett v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas

Daggett v. State

492 S.W.2d 583, 1973 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 2343

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas

DecidedFebruary 14, 1973

DocketNo. 46471

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 492 S.W.2d 583 (Daggett 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

Daggett v. State, 492 S.W.2d 583, 1973 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 2343 (Tex. 1973).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION

DOUGLAS, Judge.

This is an appeal from a conviction for the possession of marihuana. Appellant entered a plea of nolo contendere; the court assessed the punishment at four years.

Complaint is made that the stipulation is insufficient. The authorities relied upon were under Article 1.15, Vernon’s Ann.C.C.P., before it was amended in 1971. A written agreement to stipulate was signed by appellant and his counsel. The prosecutor summarized the evidence which was introduced on the motion to suppress. The evidence introduced as State’s Exhibits 1 and 2 on the motion to suppress in the record and at the trial reflects that the appellant and others possessed some 93 pounds of marihuana. The stipulation contains a recital that each allegation in the indictment is true and correct. The stipulation complied with Article 1.15, supra, and the evidence is sufficient to support the conviction.

The contention that Article 725b, Vernon’s Ann.P.C., setting out the classification of marihuana as a narcotic drug, [584]*584is arbitrary and violative of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution is overruled as it has been in many cases, e. g. Willoughby v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 481 S.W.2d 893.

Likewise, the complaint that the punishment of four years is cruel and unusual is overruled. Cook v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 467 S.W.2d 421; Parson v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 432 S.W.2d 89.¹

No error is shown. The judgment is affirmed.

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

OPINION

DOUGLAS, Judge.

This is an appeal from a conviction for the possession of marihuana. Appellant entered a plea of nolo contendere; the court assessed the punishment at four years.

Complaint is made that the stipulation is insufficient. The authorities relied upon were under Article 1.15, Vernon’s Ann.C.C.P., before it was amended in 1971. A written agreement to stipulate was signed by appellant and his counsel. The prosecutor summarized the evidence which was introduced on the motion to suppress. The evidence introduced as State’s Exhibits 1 and 2 on the motion to suppress in the record and at the trial reflects that the appellant and others possessed some 93 pounds of marihuana. The stipulation contains a recital that each allegation in the indictment is true and correct. The stipulation complied with Article 1.15, supra, and the evidence is sufficient to support the conviction.

The contention that Article 725b, Vernon’s Ann.P.C., setting out the classification of marihuana as a narcotic drug, [584]*584is arbitrary and violative of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution is overruled as it has been in many cases, e. g. Willoughby v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 481 S.W.2d 893.

Likewise, the complaint that the punishment of four years is cruel and unusual is overruled. Cook v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 467 S.W.2d 421; Parson v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 432 S.W.2d 89.¹

No error is shown. The judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

492 S.W.2d 583, 1973 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 2343, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/daggett-v-state-texcrimapp-1973.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack