Popham v. State

228 S.W.2d 857, 154 Tex. Crim. 529, 1950 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 2139
CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas
DecidedMarch 8, 1950
Docket24668
StatusPublished
Cited by17 cases

This text of 228 S.W.2d 857 (Popham 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
Popham v. State, 228 S.W.2d 857, 154 Tex. Crim. 529, 1950 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 2139 (Tex. 1950).

Opinions

DAVIDSON, Judge.

Appellant was, upon his plea of guilty, convicted for the offense of assault with intent to rape, with punishment fixed at confinement in the penitentiary for three years.

The trial court, acting under and by authority of the Adult Probation and Parole Law, Chapter 452, Acts 50th Legislature, in 1947, Art. 781b, Vernon’s C. C. P., suspended the imposition of that sentence and placed appellant upon probation.

Shortly thereafter, upon motion of the state and after hearing, the order of probation was revoked and sentence passed. It is from this order that appellant appeals.

Appellant presents various contentions as to why the trial court was without authority to revoke the probation. These are not discussed because we have concluded that the trial court was without authority, in the first instance, to place appellant upon probation.

Under Section 1 of the Adult Probation and Parole Law, district courts are expressly precluded from extending probation to one convicted of murder, rape, and “offenses against morals, decency, and chastity where the maximum punishment assessed [531]*531the defendant does not exceed ten (10) years imprisonment . . .”

The crime of rape having been expressly mentioned by name and the crime of assault with intent to commit that crime being so closely related thereto, the opinion is expressed that it was the intention of the legislature that such crime be included within the meaning of the term, “offenses against morals, decency, and chastity,” as used in the statute.

Accordingly, we hold that the trial court was without authority to place appellant upon probation after conviction for the offense of assault with intent to rape, and that he did not err in revoking the unauthorized order of probation.

The judgment is affirmed.

Opinion approved by the court.

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

Related

Heath v. State
817 S.W.2d 335 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1991)
Beyna v. Ater
793 S.W.2d 313 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1990)
Ex Parte Williams
704 S.W.2d 773 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1986)
Gallagher v. State
690 S.W.2d 587 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1985)
Emerson v. State
662 S.W.2d 92 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1983)
Coleman v. State
640 S.W.2d 889 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1982)
Tamez v. State
620 S.W.2d 586 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1981)
Balli v. State
530 S.W.2d 123 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1975)
Branch v. State
477 S.W.2d 893 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1972)
Tritt v. State
379 S.W.2d 919 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1964)
Hartley v. State
334 S.W.2d 287 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1960)
Popham v. State
228 S.W.2d 857 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1950)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
228 S.W.2d 857, 154 Tex. Crim. 529, 1950 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 2139, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/popham-v-state-texcrimapp-1950.