Utsman v. State

485 S.W.2d 573, 1972 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 1812
CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas
DecidedOctober 11, 1972
Docket45540
StatusPublished
Cited by23 cases

This text of 485 S.W.2d 573 (Utsman 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
Utsman v. State, 485 S.W.2d 573, 1972 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 1812 (Tex. 1972).

Opinions

OPINION

DOUGLAS, Judge.

This is an appeal from a conviction for the offense of possession of barbiturates. The jury assessed the punishment at confinement in jail for two years and a fine of $3,000.

The appellant complains that the trial court erred in denying his motion for change of venue and abused its discretion in refusing to grant an extension of time to file a statement of facts.

The appellant filed his motion for change of venue with affidavits of three compurgators. This was in compliance with Article 34.01, Vernon’s Ann.C.C.P. The State did not file controverting affidavits. After the motion to change venue was overruled, the appellant entered a plea of guilty.

Did the appellant waive any claimed error when he entered a plea of guilty? In Fierro v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 437 S.W.2d 833, this Court held:

“A plea of guilty, if voluntarily and understanding^ made, is conclusive as to defendant’s guilt and waives all non jurisdictional defects including claimed deprivation of federal constitutional due process. Hoskins v. State, Tex.Cr.App. 425 S.W.2d 825; Law v. Beto, 5 Cir., 370 F.2d 369, cert. denied, 389 U.S. 863, 88 S.Ct. 123, 19 L.Ed.2d 132; Litton v. Beto, 5 Cir., 386 F.2d 820; Bee v. Beto, 5 Cir., 384 F.2d 925.1

The Court also held in Andrade v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 470 S.W.2d 194, that a defendant’s plea of guilty waives any constitutional question as to search and seizure. See Durham v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 466 S.W.2d 758, and Soto v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 456 S.W.2d 389.

In Gonzales v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 458 S.W.2d 926, a motion to suppress a confession was overruled. There was no showing that the plea was not voluntary. The Court held that the plea was an effective waiver of any pretrial irregularities.

The Supreme Court of the United States held that constitutional rights were waived when a defendant voluntarily enters a plea of guilty. See McMann v. Richardson, 397 U.S. 759, 90 S.Ct. 1441, 25 L.Ed.2d 763; Parker v. North Carolina, 397 U.S. 790, 90 [575]*575S.Ct. 1458, 25 L.Ed.2d 785; Brady v. United States, 397 U.S. 742, 90 S.Ct. 1463, 25 L.Ed.2d 747.

A trial court in Texas may not accept a plea of guilty or nolo contendere by a defendant with the understanding that he may preserve his right to appeal an adverse ruling. Killebrew v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 464 S.W.2d 838, and Chavarria v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 425 S.W.2d 822. To enter a plea of guilty one must waive such rights.

The Arkansas Supreme Court in Hudspeth v. State (1934), 188 Ark. 323, 67 S. W.2d 191 cert. denied, 296 U.S. 642, 56 S. Ct. 178, 80 L.Ed. 456, held that even though the trial court erroneously denied a motion for change of venue, this error was waived when the defendant entered a plea of guilty. Cf. Johnston v. Florida, 112 Fla. 189, 150 So. 278 (1933).

We hold that when the appellant entered his plea of guilty, he waived his right to complain of the failure to change venue.

The contention that the denial of an extension of time for the filing of a transcription of the court reporter’s notes or statement of facts was an abuse of discretion is not supported by the record. The motion for the extension of time was filed November 24, 1971. The trial court in the order denying the motion recited that the appellant gave notice of appeal August 24, 1971, making November 24, 1971, the last day to file the statement of facts under Article 40.09, Vernon’s Ann. C.C.P., and that the appellant had not ordered a statement of facts at any time, but tendered the money to the court reporter on the last day.

No affidavit of indigency appears in the record. No request for the statement of facts prior to the request for extension of time is shown.

No error has been shown.

The judgment is affirmed.

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

Related

Young v. State
8 S.W.3d 656 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 2000)
Silva v. State
986 S.W.2d 29 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1998)
Taylor v. State
916 S.W.2d 680 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1996)
John Frederick Taylor, Jr. v. State
Court of Appeals of Texas, 1996
Draheim v. State
916 S.W.2d 593 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1996)
Lynch v. State
903 S.W.2d 115 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1995)
Jack v. State
871 S.W.2d 741 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1994)
Lemmons v. State
818 S.W.2d 58 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1991)
Morgan v. State
688 S.W.2d 504 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1985)
Dees v. State
676 S.W.2d 403 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1984)
Wooten v. State
612 S.W.2d 561 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1981)
Opinion No.
Texas Attorney General Reports, 1978
Moon v. State
572 S.W.2d 681 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1978)
Armstrong v. State
550 S.W.2d 25 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1977)
Hoagland v. State
541 S.W.2d 442 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1976)
Cevalles v. State
513 S.W.2d 865 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1974)
Thompson v. State
486 S.W.2d 343 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1972)
Utsman v. State
485 S.W.2d 573 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1972)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
485 S.W.2d 573, 1972 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 1812, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/utsman-v-state-texcrimapp-1972.