Wolfe v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas

Wolfe v. State

218 S.W.2d 204, 153 Tex. Crim. 171, 1949 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 1110

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas

DecidedFebruary 2, 1949

DocketNo. 24253

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 218 S.W.2d 204 (Wolfe 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

Wolfe v. State, 218 S.W.2d 204, 153 Tex. Crim. 171, 1949 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 1110 (Tex. 1949).

Pincite

Opinions

KRUEGER, Judge.

Appellant was convicted for the offense of an aggravated assault, and his punishment was assessed at confinement in the county jail for a period of two years.

It was charged in the indictment that on or about the 28th day of February, A. D. 1948, in the County of Tarrant, State of Texas, William Henry Wolfe did then and there unlawfully commit an aggravated assault upon one Ruby Ann Moore; that appellant was then and there an adult male person and the injured party a female child.

Appellant entered a plea of guilty to the court who assessed his punishment as above stated. After his conviction, he engaged the services of an attorney who filed a motion for a new trial wherein it is alleged; first, that appellant was advised by the arresting officer the best thing to do was to plead guilty and take a small fine since it was the cheapest and quickest way to get out; that he believed said officer, relied thereon, and entered the plea as aforesaid; second, that no evidence was heard by the court and he was not confronted with his accusers.

It seems than on the hearing of the motion the court heard evidence relative to the allegations therein and upon the conclusion thereof overruled the same. We have reviewed the evidence adduced on the hearing of the motion, and have reached the conclusion that the court was justified in overruling the same. Ordinarily the granting or refusal of a motion for a new [173]*173trial rests within the sound discretion of the trial court, and unless an abuse of his discretion to the prejudice of the accused is made to appear, this court would not be authorized to disturb the trial court’s conclusion on the subject. See Branch v. State, 35 Tex. Cr. R. 304 (33 S. W. 356); and Franklin v. State, 86 Tex. Cr. R. 147 (215 S. W. 304).

No error appearing in the record, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

Opinion approved by the Court.

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

KRUEGER, Judge.

Appellant was convicted for the offense of an aggravated assault, and his punishment was assessed at confinement in the county jail for a period of two years.

It was charged in the indictment that on or about the 28th day of February, A. D. 1948, in the County of Tarrant, State of Texas, William Henry Wolfe did then and there unlawfully commit an aggravated assault upon one Ruby Ann Moore; that appellant was then and there an adult male person and the injured party a female child.

Appellant entered a plea of guilty to the court who assessed his punishment as above stated. After his conviction, he engaged the services of an attorney who filed a motion for a new trial wherein it is alleged; first, that appellant was advised by the arresting officer the best thing to do was to plead guilty and take a small fine since it was the cheapest and quickest way to get out; that he believed said officer, relied thereon, and entered the plea as aforesaid; second, that no evidence was heard by the court and he was not confronted with his accusers.

It seems than on the hearing of the motion the court heard evidence relative to the allegations therein and upon the conclusion thereof overruled the same. We have reviewed the evidence adduced on the hearing of the motion, and have reached the conclusion that the court was justified in overruling the same. Ordinarily the granting or refusal of a motion for a new [173]*173trial rests within the sound discretion of the trial court, and unless an abuse of his discretion to the prejudice of the accused is made to appear, this court would not be authorized to disturb the trial court’s conclusion on the subject. See Branch v. State, 35 Tex. Cr. R. 304 (33 S. W. 356); and Franklin v. State, 86 Tex. Cr. R. 147 (215 S. W. 304).

No error appearing in the record, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

Opinion approved by the Court.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

218 S.W.2d 204, 153 Tex. Crim. 171, 1949 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 1110, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wolfe-v-state-texcrimapp-1949.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack