Baty v. State
| Decision Date | 26 July 1982 |
| Docket Number | No. 05-81-00596-CR,05-81-00596-CR |
| Citation | 638 S.W.2d 185 |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
| Parties | Jimmy Rogers BATY, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee. |
Donald C. Adams, Dallas, for appellant.
Henry Wade, Dist. Atty., Henry Whitley, Asst. Dist. Atty., for appellee.
Before GUITTARD, C.J., and FISH and ALLEN, JJ.
Jimmy Rogers Baty was convicted of felony theft. He appeals on the ground, among others, that the court erred in overruling his motion to dismiss the indictment under the Speedy Trial Act, Tex. Code Crim. Pro. Ann. art. 32A.02 (Vernon Supp. 1980-1981). We hold that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding that the State was ready within the 120-day period, even though evidence at the hearing showed that the complaining witness was out of the state when the State's announcement of ready was filed. Appellant's other grounds are discussed and overruled in an unpublished supplement to this opinion. Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.
The facts are established by evidence at a hearing immediately before trial. Appellant was arrested on July 30, 1980. He was indicted on September 3. Another indictment was returned on December 19, charging the offense in the same terms and adding a paragraph for enhancement of punishment. The earlier indictment was dismissed, and trial began on the second indictment February 9, 1981.
The State relies on a written announcement of ready filed December 10, 1980, 133 days after appellant was arrested. Within this period, the trial was passed several times on written agreements of counsel. Although some of these agreements are equivocal in that they provide that the right to a speedy trial is not waived, the record shows that the delay of 21 days from October 6 to October 27 had appellant's unqualified consent, as the trial court expressly found. Therefore, this period was properly excluded under section 4(3) of the Act. Accordingly, the State's announcement of ready on December 10 was within the 120-day period and supports the court's ruling unless the evidence at the hearing rebuts the State's announcement. See Fraire v. State, 588 S.W.2d 789, 791 (Tex. Cr. App. 1979); Barfield v. State, 586 S.W.2d 538, 542 (Tex. Cr. App. 1979).
The State's investigator testified that from October 19, 1980, through January 31, 1981, the complaining witness was performing military training at Fort Gordon, Georgia. When the investigator talked to her by telephone on October 8, she said that she was willing to come back at any time the State requested. The investigator also testified that on January 19 he spoke with the complainant's company commander, who advised him that complainant was then undergoing field training and would have to start the program over again if she missed it.
The assistant district attorney assigned to the case testified that after December 8, when the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Robinson v. State
...Caldwell v. State, 672 S.W.2d 244 (Tex.App.--Waco, 1983); White v. State, 647 S.W.2d 71 (Tex.App.--Tyler, 1983); Baty v. State, 638 S.W.2d 185 (Tex.App.--Dallas, 1982); Garcia v. State, 625 S.W.2d 831 (Tex.App.--Houston [14th dist.], 1981); see and cf. Corte v. State, 630 S.W.2d 690 (Tex.Ap......
-
Jones v. State
...See also Garcia v. State, 625 S.W.2d 831, 833 (Tex.App.--Houston [14th] 1981, pet. ref'd). And in Baty v. State, 638 S.W.2d 185 (Tex.App.--Dallas 1982, pet. ref'd), the court of appeals held that a showing that the complaining witness was in basic training in another state was not enough to......
-
Trull v. State
...presumption of the State's readiness. Walters v. State, 628 S.W.2d 526 (Tex.App.--Fort Worth 1982, no pet.); Baty v. State, 638 S.W.2d 185 (Tex.App.--Dallas 1982, pet. ref'd); Lozano v. State, 680 S.W.2d 903 (Tex.App.--Houston [1st Dist.] 1984, no pet.). In Walters, the State was granted tw......
-
Lozano v. State, 01-84-0048-CR
...S.W.2d 526 (Tex.App.--Fort Worth 1982 no pet.). In fact, witnesses may even be unavailable at some later date. Baty v. State, 638 S.W.2d 185 (Tex.App.--Dallas 1982, pet ref'd). It was established that this cause was not tried until approximately six months after indictment because of court ......