Pruitt v. State

Court of Appeals of Texas

Pruitt v. State

737 S.W.2d 622, 1987 Tex. App. LEXIS 8576

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas

DecidedSeptember 30, 1987

Docket2-87-177-CR

StatusPublished

Cited by15 cases

This text of 737 S.W.2d 622 (Pruitt v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Pruitt v. State, 737 S.W.2d 622, 1987 Tex. App. LEXIS 8576 (Tex. Ct. App. 1987).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION ON MOTION TO ABATE

KELTNER, Justice.

This appeal is from Raymond Lee Pruitt’s conviction by a jury for aggravated robbery. Although the case is not presently set for submission, it is before us on a motion to abate filed by Pruitt’s trial counsel.

Pruitt did not appear at the punishment hearing, although his attorney admits that he was notified of the hearing. In his absence, the court assessed punishment at thirty years in the Texas Department of Corrections. The court relied on a pre-sen-tencing report which demonstrated a long history of criminal behavior.

Pruitt also did not appear for sentencing on July 10,1987, but was sentenced in his absence. He was arrested several days later and sent to the Texas Department of Corrections, without being re-sentenced. Although we sympathize with the plight of the judge in this situation, our Code of Criminal Procedure requires that, “sentence shall be pronounced in the de *623 fendant’s presence.” TEX.CODE CRIM. PROC.ANN. art. 42.03(1) (Vernon Supp. 1987); see also Holly v. State, 494 S.W.2d 178, 179 (Tex.Crim.App.1973) (opinion on reh’g). The sentencing date begins the running of appellate time requirements such as filing the record and briefs.

Because we remand the case to the trial court for proper sentencing, we do not address the issue of whether the record contains a finding by the trial court that the defendant voluntarily absented himself from the punishment stage of the trial.

Since Pruitt was not present at the time of sentencing in the instant case, where the conviction was for a felony offense, the cause is remanded to the trial court for proper sentencing. At the same time, of course, the trial court shall determine whether Pruitt wishes to prosecute an appeal, whether he is indigent and needs or wants an appointed appellate attorney and if so, who that person shall be. As previously noted, all appellate time periods shall begin running at the time of sentencing and all prior time restrictions are of no import or effect.

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

OPINION ON MOTION TO ABATE

KELTNER, Justice.

This appeal is from Raymond Lee Pruitt’s conviction by a jury for aggravated robbery. Although the case is not presently set for submission, it is before us on a motion to abate filed by Pruitt’s trial counsel.

Pruitt did not appear at the punishment hearing, although his attorney admits that he was notified of the hearing. In his absence, the court assessed punishment at thirty years in the Texas Department of Corrections. The court relied on a pre-sen-tencing report which demonstrated a long history of criminal behavior.

Pruitt also did not appear for sentencing on July 10,1987, but was sentenced in his absence. He was arrested several days later and sent to the Texas Department of Corrections, without being re-sentenced. Although we sympathize with the plight of the judge in this situation, our Code of Criminal Procedure requires that, “sentence shall be pronounced in the de *623 fendant’s presence.” TEX.CODE CRIM. PROC.ANN. art. 42.03(1) (Vernon Supp. 1987); see also Holly v. State, 494 S.W.2d 178, 179 (Tex.Crim.App.1973) (opinion on reh’g). The sentencing date begins the running of appellate time requirements such as filing the record and briefs.

Because we remand the case to the trial court for proper sentencing, we do not address the issue of whether the record contains a finding by the trial court that the defendant voluntarily absented himself from the punishment stage of the trial.

Since Pruitt was not present at the time of sentencing in the instant case, where the conviction was for a felony offense, the cause is remanded to the trial court for proper sentencing. At the same time, of course, the trial court shall determine whether Pruitt wishes to prosecute an appeal, whether he is indigent and needs or wants an appointed appellate attorney and if so, who that person shall be. As previously noted, all appellate time periods shall begin running at the time of sentencing and all prior time restrictions are of no import or effect.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

737 S.W.2d 622, 1987 Tex. App. LEXIS 8576, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pruitt-v-state-texapp-1987.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack