Ex parte Carpio

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas

Ex parte Carpio

684 S.W.2d 708, 1985 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 1215

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas·Decided February 13, 1985·No. No. 69349·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

OPINION

PER CURIAM.

This is a post conviction application for a writ of habeas corpus filed pursuant to Art. 11.07, V.A.C.C.P.

Applicant was indicted for delivery of marihuana “fifty pounds or less but more than five pounds.” He was convicted upon his plea of guilty before the court, on March 21, 1983, and the court sentenced him to fifteen years’ confinement.

Applicant was charged and punished under the provisions contained in House Bill 730,¹ which was declared infirm in Ex Parte Crisp, 661 S.W.2d 944 (Tex.Cr.App.1983). He contends that his conviction is therefore invalid.

At the time applicant pled guilty, the offense for which he was indicted was a [709]*709first degree felony punishable under H.B. 730, by confinement for life or for a term not more than 99 years nor less than 5 years, and a fine not to exceed $20,000.² In Ex Parte Crisp, supra, we held that although H.B. 730 was defective, the original act stands as though H.B. 730 had never been enacted. Under the original act the offense with which applicant was charged was a third degree felony, punishable by confinement for a term of not more than 10 years or less than 2 years, and a fine not to exceed $5,000. Art. 4476-15, Sec. 4.01(b)(3) and 4.05(d), (e), V.A.C.S. Applicant was sentenced to fifteen years’ confinement.

Accordingly, applicant is entitled to have his punishment reassessed under the provisions of the original act. We remand this cause to the trial court for reassessment of punishment within the range set forth in the original act.

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

OPINION

PER CURIAM.

This is a post conviction application for a writ of habeas corpus filed pursuant to Art. 11.07, V.A.C.C.P.

Applicant was indicted for delivery of marihuana “fifty pounds or less but more than five pounds.” He was convicted upon his plea of guilty before the court, on March 21, 1983, and the court sentenced him to fifteen years’ confinement.

Applicant was charged and punished under the provisions contained in House Bill 730,¹ which was declared infirm in Ex Parte Crisp, 661 S.W.2d 944 (Tex.Cr.App.1983). He contends that his conviction is therefore invalid.

At the time applicant pled guilty, the offense for which he was indicted was a [709]*709first degree felony punishable under H.B. 730, by confinement for life or for a term not more than 99 years nor less than 5 years, and a fine not to exceed $20,000.² In Ex Parte Crisp, supra, we held that although H.B. 730 was defective, the original act stands as though H.B. 730 had never been enacted. Under the original act the offense with which applicant was charged was a third degree felony, punishable by confinement for a term of not more than 10 years or less than 2 years, and a fine not to exceed $5,000. Art. 4476-15, Sec. 4.01(b)(3) and 4.05(d), (e), V.A.C.S. Applicant was sentenced to fifteen years’ confinement.

Accordingly, applicant is entitled to have his punishment reassessed under the provisions of the original act. We remand this cause to the trial court for reassessment of punishment within the range set forth in the original act.

Ex parte Carpio, 684 S.W.2d 708, 1985 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 1215 (Tex. 1985).

Pincite

684 S.W.2d 708 (Ex parte Carpio) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related