Grayson v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas

Grayson v. State

409 S.W.2d 850

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas

DecidedDecember 31, 1966

DocketNo. 39851

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 409 S.W.2d 850 (Grayson 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

Grayson v. State, 409 S.W.2d 850 (Tex. 1966).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION ON APPELLANT’S MOTION FOR REHEARING

MORRISON, Presiding Judge.

Upon consideration of appellant’s motion for rehearing the original opinions are withdrawn and the following substituted in lieu thereof.

The offense is burglary; the punishment, ten years.

Trial was had and notice of appeal was given on February 16, 1966. Appellant first contends that his written confession which was witnessed by Justice of the Peace Roberts was not admissible, because it was not also witnessed by someone other than a peace officer as is required by Sec. 3 of Article 38.22(a), Vernon’s Ann.C.C.P. (1965). Such section deals with oral confessions and needs not be considered here.

He further contends that the trial court’s resolution of disputed facts was not ■sufficient under our holding in Lopez v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 384 S.W.2d 345. His findings contained the recitation that appellant was not refused the assistance of counsel and that he freely and voluntarily made the statement. We deem these findings sufficient.

The judgment is affirmed and appellant’s motion for rehearing is overruled.

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

OPINION ON APPELLANT’S MOTION FOR REHEARING

MORRISON, Presiding Judge.

Upon consideration of appellant’s motion for rehearing the original opinions are withdrawn and the following substituted in lieu thereof.

The offense is burglary; the punishment, ten years.

Trial was had and notice of appeal was given on February 16, 1966. Appellant first contends that his written confession which was witnessed by Justice of the Peace Roberts was not admissible, because it was not also witnessed by someone other than a peace officer as is required by Sec. 3 of Article 38.22(a), Vernon’s Ann.C.C.P. (1965). Such section deals with oral confessions and needs not be considered here.

He further contends that the trial court’s resolution of disputed facts was not ■sufficient under our holding in Lopez v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 384 S.W.2d 345. His findings contained the recitation that appellant was not refused the assistance of counsel and that he freely and voluntarily made the statement. We deem these findings sufficient.

The judgment is affirmed and appellant’s motion for rehearing is overruled.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

409 S.W.2d 850, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/grayson-v-state-texcrimapp-1966.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack