Franklin v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas

Franklin v. State

144 S.W.2d 581, 140 Tex. Crim. 251, 1940 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 593

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas

DecidedNovember 13, 1940

DocketNo. 21239

StatusPublished

Cited by21 cases

This text of 144 S.W.2d 581 (Franklin 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

Franklin v. State, 144 S.W.2d 581, 140 Tex. Crim. 251, 1940 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 593 (Tex. 1940).

Pincite

Opinion

BEAUCHAMP, Judge.

Appellant plead guilty in the district court of Bell County to a charge of burglary and having waived a trial by jury, was assessed a penalty of three years in the penitentiary by the judge of the court.

The only evidence introduced in the case was the written confession of the appellant which he had previously made.

Article 10a of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides that a defendant in a criminal prosecution for a felony less than capital shall have the right upon pleading guilty to waive a trial by jury. It is conditioned, however, that he must make a personal appearance in open court; that it must be with the approval of the court and of the attorney representing the State, entered of record. If he has no attorney the court must appoint one to represent him. Art. 12 of the code further provides that it shall be necessary for the “State to introduce evidence into the record showing the guilt of the defendant * * * * *, and in no event shall the person charged be'convicted upon his plea of guilty without sufficient evidence to support the same.” This provision is susceptible of no other construction than that herein given.

Upon a plea of guilty before the court in such cases the State must produce evidence sufficient to support the finding of guilt and the punishment assessed. The confession may be used to aid the proof of the corpus delicti, but not to establish it. An extrajudicial confession, alone, without proof of the corpus delicti is insufficient to sustain a conviction. The corpus delicti consists of two things — first, a criminal act, and, second, the defendant’s agency in the commission of such act. (Branch’s Annotated Penal Code, Sec. 1890, page 1049, and authorities there cited.)

It will be observed that in this case there is.no proof that [253]*253the burglary was committed other than that which is embraced in the confession itself. While a jury would be given the power to find him guilty under such confession and plea, the act of the legislature permitting a defendant to waive a jury specifically did not delegate to the court such power, but provided, to the contrary, that evidence must be heard.

Appellant’s contention must be sustained. The judgment "of the trial court is reversed and the case remanded.

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

BEAUCHAMP, Judge.

Appellant plead guilty in the district court of Bell County to a charge of burglary and having waived a trial by jury, was assessed a penalty of three years in the penitentiary by the judge of the court.

The only evidence introduced in the case was the written confession of the appellant which he had previously made.

Article 10a of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides that a defendant in a criminal prosecution for a felony less than capital shall have the right upon pleading guilty to waive a trial by jury. It is conditioned, however, that he must make a personal appearance in open court; that it must be with the approval of the court and of the attorney representing the State, entered of record. If he has no attorney the court must appoint one to represent him. Art. 12 of the code further provides that it shall be necessary for the “State to introduce evidence into the record showing the guilt of the defendant * * * * *, and in no event shall the person charged be'convicted upon his plea of guilty without sufficient evidence to support the same.” This provision is susceptible of no other construction than that herein given.

Upon a plea of guilty before the court in such cases the State must produce evidence sufficient to support the finding of guilt and the punishment assessed. The confession may be used to aid the proof of the corpus delicti, but not to establish it. An extrajudicial confession, alone, without proof of the corpus delicti is insufficient to sustain a conviction. The corpus delicti consists of two things — first, a criminal act, and, second, the defendant’s agency in the commission of such act. (Branch’s Annotated Penal Code, Sec. 1890, page 1049, and authorities there cited.)

It will be observed that in this case there is.no proof that [253]*253the burglary was committed other than that which is embraced in the confession itself. While a jury would be given the power to find him guilty under such confession and plea, the act of the legislature permitting a defendant to waive a jury specifically did not delegate to the court such power, but provided, to the contrary, that evidence must be heard.

Appellant’s contention must be sustained. The judgment "of the trial court is reversed and the case remanded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

144 S.W.2d 581, 140 Tex. Crim. 251, 1940 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 593, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/franklin-v-state-texcrimapp-1940.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack