Battiste v. State, 45759
| Decision Date | 18 October 1972 |
| Docket Number | No. 45759,45759 |
| Parties | William Frank BATTISTE, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee. |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
C. C. Divine, Houston, for appellant.
Carol S. Vance, Dist. Atty., James C. Brough and Allen McAhan, Asst. Dist. Attys., Houston, Jim D. Vollers, State's Atty., and Robert A. Huttash, Asst. State's Atty., Austin, for the State.
This appeal arises out of a conviction for robbery by assault wherein the punishment was assessed at 7 years.
On January 22, 1971, 1 appellant's counsel, during a trial before a jury on a plea of not guilty, informed the court that the appellant desired to change his plea. Thereafter, a jury waiver was executed and the appellant entered a plea of guilty before the court whereupon he was duly admonished of the consequences of his plea. The State then re-offered all of the evidence previously offered before the jury, and introduced a sworn written 'judicial confession.' The appellant then took the witness stand and made a judicial confession. The court found the appellant guilty and assessed punishment.
It does not appear that either of appellant's briefs was filed in accordance with the time limitations set forth in Article 40.09 § 9, Vernon's Ann.C.C.P., leaving only unassigned error, if any, that may be considered in the interest of justice. Article 40.09 § 13, Vernon's Ann.C.C.P.
If it can be argued that the briefs were timely filed, it is observed that appellant complains in one ground of error that his guilty plea was involuntary, did not constitute a valid plea, and the evidence offered is insufficient to support the judgment. It is clear that this is a multifarious assignment and does not comply with the requirements of Article 40.09 § 9, supra. See Burton v. State, 471 S.W.2d 817 (Tex.Cr.App.1971).
Nevertheless we shall consider the same. Appellant cites no authority nor calls our attention to anything in the record to support his claim that his plea was involuntary. Appellant was represented by two retained counsel and he clearly indicated he desired to plead guilty. He was duly admonished by the court and thereafter made a judicial confession during the trial before the court.
Appellant does call our attention to the fact that one of his retained counsel arrived after his jury trial had consumed approximately a day and a half. The court refused to postpone the trial because of the belated arrival but permitted such counsel to assist appellant's other...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Dinnery v. State
...alone, is sufficient to sustain a conviction upon a guilty plea, Cevalles v. State, 513 S.W.2d 865 (Tex.Cr.App.1974); Battiste v. State, 485 S.W.2d 781 (Tex.Cr.App.1972), and to satisfy the requirements of Article 1.15, V.A.C.C.P., Bishop v. State, 507 S.W.2d 745 (Tex.Cr.App.1974); Knight v......
-
Mayhew v. Town of Sunnyvale
... ... more of the essential elements of Mayhew's multiple causes of action grounded on federal and state constitutional claims. Insofar as the trial court's judgment denies Mayhew any relief against the ... ...
-
Byrom v. State
...of guilty. Henderson v. State, 519 S.W.2d 654 (Tex.Cr.App.1975); Cevalles v. State, 513 S.W.2d 865 (Tex.Cr.App.1974); Battiste v. State, 485 S.W.2d 781 (Tex.Cr.App.1972). This ground of error is Still another complaint is made that the indictment fails to state that the offense was committe......
-
Spaulding v. State, 48202
...Burton v. State, 471 S.W.2d 817, 821 (Tex.Cr.App.1971); Smith v. State, 481 S.W.2d 886, 888 (Tex.Cr.App.1972); Battiste v. State, 485 S.W.2d 781, 782 (Tex.Cr.App.1972). See also, Black v. State, 503 S.W.2d 554 Moreover, appellant made no effort to prove the existence of the material which h......