Baker v. State, 23992.
| Decision Date | 31 March 1948 |
| Docket Number | No. 23992.,23992. |
| Citation | 209 S.W.2d 769 |
| Parties | BAKER v. STATE. |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Appeal from District Court, Potter County; Henry S. Bishop, Judge.
Leon Baker was convicted of robbery by assault, and he appeals.
Affirmed.
H. H. Cooper, of Amarillo, for appellant.
Ernest S. Goens, State's Atty., of Austin, for the State.
The offense is robbery by assault. The punishment assessed is confinement in the state penitentiary for a term of five years.
The question of the sufficiency of the evidence is not raised and such could not be successfully maintained under the facts of the case. The only question presented for review relates to the court's action in declining to accord him the benefit of the Adult Probation and Parole Law. This matter rests entirely within the sound discretion of the trial court, and it seems that appellant realizes this but claims that the trial court abused his discretion with respect thereto because on the hearing of his application for probation, he proved that he was past seventeen and under eighteen years of age; that he had never theretofore been charged with an offense; that he was a good and obedient negro boy; that his parents were good negroes; that this evidence was not controverted but notwithstanding the evidence touching his good conduct, the court declined to accord him the benefit of the Adult Probation and Parole Law. See Art. 781b, Vernon's Ann. C.C.P.
There is no provision made in Art. 781b, Vernon's Ann.C.C.P. for an appeal to this court in the event the trial court declines to accord to one convicted of an offense the benefit of the Adult Probation and Parole Law. There are only two instances in which an appeal may be taken, first, when the accused has been convicted and granted a parole he may nevertheless appeal from the judgment of conviction, and second, where he had been placed on probation or parole, after conviction, and his parole has been revoked.
From what we have said it follows that the judgment of the trial court should be affirmed and it is so ordered.
The foregoing opinion of the Commission of Appeals has been examined by the Judges of the Court of Criminal Appeals and approved by the Court.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Murphy v. State
...to give probation was a matter within the "sound," and evidently unreviewable discretion of the trial court, e.g., Baker v. State, 151 Tex.Cr.R. 454, 209 S.W.2d 769 (1948); Stratmon v. State, 169 Tex.Cr.R. 188, 333 S.W.2d 135 (1960), the Court apparently never found occasion to write on the......
-
Flournoy v. State
...thereafter through September 1978. Second, the legal backdrop: Almost from the occasion of its first being stated in Baker v. State, 151 Tex.Cr.R. 454, 209 S.W.2d 769 (1948), that granting probation in a nonjury trial "rests entirely within the sound discretion of the trial court" has becom......
-
Martin v. State, 42709
...Tex.Cr.App., 418 S.W.2d 810; Watson v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 418 S.W.2d 822; Matthews v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 414 S.W.2d 938; Baker v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 209 S.W.2d 769; Wilson v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 240 S.W.2d 774; Ex parte Pittman, Tex.Cr.App., 248 S.W.2d 159; Escobar v. State, Tex.Cr.App.,......
-
Stratmon v. State, 31544
...its benefits should be accorded to an accused rests within the discertion of the trial court and was not appealable. Baker v. State, 151 Tex.Cr.R. 454, 209 S.W.2d 769. We also held that a proceeding to revoke probation was not a trial as the term is used in the Constitution in reference to ......