Nichol v. State

480 S.W.2d 222, 1972 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 1998
CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas
DecidedApril 12, 1972
DocketNo. 45282
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 480 S.W.2d 222 (Nichol 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
Nichol v. State, 480 S.W.2d 222, 1972 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 1998 (Tex. 1972).

Opinion

OPINION

DOUGLAS, Judge.

This is an appeal from a conviction for the offense of incest. The court assessed punishment at six years.

On June 14, 1971, the appellant pled guilty before the court to the indictment charging him with having had carnal knowledge of his seven-year-old daughter. The trial court properly admonished him and found him to be sane. Appellant waived his right to a jury trial and stipulated testimony and other evidence was admitted with appellant’s written consent as provided in Article 1.15, Vernon’s Ann. C.C.P. Appellant sought probation.

After finding the appellant guilty, the trial court set punishment at six years and ordered a pre-sentence investigation by the probation office. On July 8, 1971, the trial court denied appellant’s application for probation and imposed the sentence.

In his sole ground of error appellant complains that the trial court abused its discretion in not granting probation for allegedly failing to consider fully his good military record and his lack of former convictions.

The trial court ordered a pre-sentence investigation and delayed sentencing for some twenty-four days. We do not know what the trial court considered, but we presume he gave due consideration to all pertinent information to determine if justice would be better served by granting or denying probation.

[223]*223“The question of whether an accused is entitled to probation in a trial before the court is a matter solely for the trial court’s discretion.” McNeese v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 468 S.W.2d 800, 801.

No abuse of discretion has been shown. The judgment is affirmed.

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

Related

Balderas v. State
497 S.W.2d 298 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1973)
Saldana v. State
493 S.W.2d 778 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1973)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
480 S.W.2d 222, 1972 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 1998, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/nichol-v-state-texcrimapp-1972.