Perez v. State

478 S.W.2d 551, 1972 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 2586
CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas
DecidedMarch 1, 1972
Docket44700
StatusPublished
Cited by15 cases

This text of 478 S.W.2d 551 (Perez 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
Perez v. State, 478 S.W.2d 551, 1972 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 2586 (Tex. 1972).

Opinion

OPINION

DOUGLAS, Judge.

This is an appeal from a conviction after a plea of guilty before the court for kidnapping a minor from his parent. The court assessed the punishment at twenty-five years.

The stipulated written evidence, including appellant’s confession, indicates that at about 8:00 p. m. on September 13, 1970, appellant induced a seven-year-old boy to get into his rented automobile. He drove to a secluded spot where he committed both anal and oral sodomy on the child. They spent the night in a motel. On September 14, 1970, appellant gave the boy 45⅜ told him to get a Coke and to call his parents. A bystander recognized the boy from having seen his picture on television and called the police. The appellant was apprehended later the same day as he was driving toward San Marcos from San Antonio when the boy who was in another car identified him.

The appellant contends that the punishment is cruel and unusual in violation of Article 1, Section 13 of the Constitution of the State of Texas, Vernon’s Ann.St. Appellant was convicted under Article 1177, Vernon’s Ann.P.C., which provides a maximum punishment of twenty-five years for the offense of kidnapping. The punishment is within the range provided for in the statute and we hold it is not cruel and unusual within the constitutional prohibition.

Appellant further complains that the trial court failed to comply with the provisions of Article 26.13, Vernon’s Ann. C.C.P., in not making a determination of sanity before accepting the plea of guilty. A docket sheet entry reads “Sanity established.” No issue of sanity was raised at the time the plea was taken. The judgment recites that the appellant was sane. See generally, Ring v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 450 S.W.2d 85; Taylor v. State, 88 Tex.Cr.R. 470, 227 S.W. 679.

No reversible error is shown. The judgment is affirmed.

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

Related

Ryan Victor Molnoskey v. State
Court of Appeals of Texas, 2015
Ryan Victor Molnoskey v. State
Texas Supreme Court, 2015
United States v. Jose De La Luz Perez
752 F.3d 398 (Fourth Circuit, 2014)
Adams v. State
745 S.W.2d 536 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1988)
Tisby v. State
683 S.W.2d 848 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1984)
Ex Parte Beiersdorf
532 S.W.2d 632 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1976)
Tupper v. State
506 S.W.2d 858 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1974)
Bosworth v. State
510 S.W.2d 334 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1974)
Williams v. State
497 S.W.2d 306 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1973)
White v. State
495 S.W.2d 903 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1973)
Helms v. State
484 S.W.2d 925 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1972)
Kane v. State
481 S.W.2d 808 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1972)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
478 S.W.2d 551, 1972 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 2586, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/perez-v-state-texcrimapp-1972.