Quiroga v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas

Quiroga v. State

478 S.W.2d 466, 1972 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 2599

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas

DecidedMarch 1, 1972

DocketNo. 44901

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 478 S.W.2d 466 (Quiroga 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

Quiroga v. State, 478 S.W.2d 466, 1972 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 2599 (Tex. 1972).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION

ODOM, Judge.

The appeal is from' a conviction for the offense of unlawful possession of a narcotic drug, to-wit: heroin; punishment was assessed by the court at five years.

Appellant’s sole ground of error is that the trial court erred in denying his application for probation.

On January 11, 1971, the appellant waived his right of a trial by jury and entered a plea of guilty to the offense charged in the indictment before the court. Prior to entering such plea he filed an application for adult probation and contends the trial court abused its discretion in refusing to grant the same because “all of his diffi[467]*467culties with law enforcement agencies in the past have been solely because of his curse of being heavily and tragically addicted to the narcotic drug, heroin.”

This contention is overruled. We find nothing in the record which shows an abuse of judicial discretion on the part of the trial judge. The right of probation, where the court assesses punishment, rests absolutely with the trial court’s discretion under the guideposts of the statute, e. g. Martin v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 452 S.W.2d 481; Redd v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 438 S.W.2d 565; Roy v. State, 167 Tex.Cr.R. 307, 319 S.W.2d 705.

The judgment is affirmed.

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

OPINION

ODOM, Judge.

The appeal is from' a conviction for the offense of unlawful possession of a narcotic drug, to-wit: heroin; punishment was assessed by the court at five years.

Appellant’s sole ground of error is that the trial court erred in denying his application for probation.

On January 11, 1971, the appellant waived his right of a trial by jury and entered a plea of guilty to the offense charged in the indictment before the court. Prior to entering such plea he filed an application for adult probation and contends the trial court abused its discretion in refusing to grant the same because “all of his diffi[467]*467culties with law enforcement agencies in the past have been solely because of his curse of being heavily and tragically addicted to the narcotic drug, heroin.”

This contention is overruled. We find nothing in the record which shows an abuse of judicial discretion on the part of the trial judge. The right of probation, where the court assesses punishment, rests absolutely with the trial court’s discretion under the guideposts of the statute, e. g. Martin v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 452 S.W.2d 481; Redd v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 438 S.W.2d 565; Roy v. State, 167 Tex.Cr.R. 307, 319 S.W.2d 705.

The judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

478 S.W.2d 466, 1972 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 2599, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/quiroga-v-state-texcrimapp-1972.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack