Hustead v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas

Hustead v. State

251 S.W. 1074, 95 Tex. Crim. 49, 1923 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 507

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas

DecidedOctober 25, 1923

DocketNo. 6590.

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 251 S.W. 1074 (Hustead 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

Hustead v. State, 251 S.W. 1074, 95 Tex. Crim. 49, 1923 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 507 (Tex. 1923).

Pincite

Opinions

HAWKINS, Judge.

— Conviction is for conspiracy to commit the crime of theft, with punishment at two years confinement in the penitentiary.

Appellant went to trial on a plea of “not guilty.” • After the State’s evidence was introduced the plea of “not guilty” was withdrawn and a plea of guilty entered. No bills of exception were reserved to any part of the proceedings, and no statement of facts adduced upon the trial accompanies the record. Appellant sought a new trial on the ground that his attorney coerced him into entering the plea of guilty. This necessarily raised an issue of fact for the consideration of the trial court. No bill of exception having been reserved to his action in overruling the motion for new trial, we are not in a position to review the question. What purports to be the evidence taken upon a hearing of the motion accompanies the record, but cannot be considered. The trial term adjourned July 4th, 1921. The statement of facts in question was not filed in the court below until September 2, 1921. To be considered such a statement of facts must be filed within the term. Sec. 598, Branch’s Ann. Pen. Code, Jurado v. State, 91 Texas Crim. Rep., 490; Nothaf v. State, 91 Texas Crim. Rep., 619, and cases cited in both opinions. We also observe that many affidavits attached to the motion were taken before appellant’s attorney. This has been repeatedly held to be objectionable. The judgment will be affirmed.

Affirmed.

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

HAWKINS, Judge.

— Conviction is for conspiracy to commit the crime of theft, with punishment at two years confinement in the penitentiary.

Appellant went to trial on a plea of “not guilty.” • After the State’s evidence was introduced the plea of “not guilty” was withdrawn and a plea of guilty entered. No bills of exception were reserved to any part of the proceedings, and no statement of facts adduced upon the trial accompanies the record. Appellant sought a new trial on the ground that his attorney coerced him into entering the plea of guilty. This necessarily raised an issue of fact for the consideration of the trial court. No bill of exception having been reserved to his action in overruling the motion for new trial, we are not in a position to review the question. What purports to be the evidence taken upon a hearing of the motion accompanies the record, but cannot be considered. The trial term adjourned July 4th, 1921. The statement of facts in question was not filed in the court below until September 2, 1921. To be considered such a statement of facts must be filed within the term. Sec. 598, Branch’s Ann. Pen. Code, Jurado v. State, 91 Texas Crim. Rep., 490; Nothaf v. State, 91 Texas Crim. Rep., 619, and cases cited in both opinions. We also observe that many affidavits attached to the motion were taken before appellant’s attorney. This has been repeatedly held to be objectionable. The judgment will be affirmed.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

251 S.W. 1074, 95 Tex. Crim. 49, 1923 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 507, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hustead-v-state-texcrimapp-1923.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack