Bayless v. State, 46021
| Court | Court of Appeals of Texas. Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas |
| Writing for the Court | MORRISON |
| Citation | 492 S.W.2d 588 |
| Parties | Billy Ray BAYLESS, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee. |
| Docket Number | No. 46021,46021 |
| Decision Date | 11 April 1973 |
Page 588
v.
The STATE of Texas, Appellee.
Rehearing Denied April 25, 1973.
S. L. Halsey, Dallas, for appellant.
Henry Wade, Dist. Atty., W. T. Westmoreland, Jr., Asst. Dist. Atty., Dallas, Jim D. Vollers, State's Atty., and Robert A. Huttash, Asst. State's Atty., Austin, for the State.
MORRISON, Judge.
The offense is rape; the punishment, fifty (50) years.
Appellant's four grounds of error relate to the admissibility of his confession.
Appellant was arrested on August 9, 1967, at approximately 10:00 a.m. At about 11:30 a.m. he was taken before Judge Chamberlain, then a corporation court judge, who testified that he informed him of the nature of the accusation against appellant, explained to appellant his right to an attorney, his right to request the appointment of an attorney if he was unable
Page 589
to obtain the same, his right to consult with such an attorney and have such an attorney present with him during questioning, his right to an examining trial and his right to remain silent, his right to change his mind and end any discussion with law enforcement personnel at any time as well as all warnings required by Article 15.17, Vernon's Ann.C.C.P.Appellant signed a confession at approximately 12:00 noon, following a brief interrogation. Officer Herbert Blessing testified that he warned appellant fully, in accordance with the terms of Article 38.22, V.A.C.C.P., before taking the confession. Testifying in his own behalf, appellant stated that he did not fully understand the warning he received and thought he was signing a statement exonerating himself when he signed the confession.
Appellant's first contention is that he did not waive the services of an attorney. Judge Chamberlain testified that he asked appellant what he was going to do about an attorney and appellant indicated that he was going to get one, but that he did not want one at that time. Officer Blessing also testified that, during his interrogation, appellant repeatedly assured the officers that he did not want an attorney at that point.
Appellant's first ground of error is overruled.
Appellant's second contention is that his confession is inadmissible, because his arrest was illegal. At his trial, appellant did not object that his arrest was illegal. Further, we find the arrest to have been legal and observe further that his detention following...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Self v. State, 48622
...unaided by other evidence. See, e.g., Gutierrez v. State, supra; Brookins v. State, 499 S.W.2d 320 (Tex.Cr.App.1973); Bayless v. State, 492 S.W.2d 588 (Tex.Cr.App.1973); Thomas v. State, 458 S.W.2d 817 (Tex.Cr.App.1970). The remaining element of proof essential to the State's case that the ......
-
Brantley v. State, 49532
...evidence. See, e.g. Gutierrez v. State, (502 S.W.2d 746) supra; Brookins v. State, 499 S.W.2d 320 (Tex.Cr.App.1973); Bayless v. State, 492 S.W.2d 588 (Tex.Cr.App.1973); Thomas v. State, 458 S.W.2d 817 (Tex.Cr.App.1970). The remaining element of proof essential to the State's case that the a......
-
Aranda v. State, 47441
...crime is established by other evidence, as is true in the instant case, an instruction on corroboration is not necessary. Bayless v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 492 S.W.2d 588; Thomas v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 458 S.W.2d 817; Engledow v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 407 S.W.2d Appellant contends that the court......
-
Jefferson v. State
...certain circumstances invalidate a confession. Morgan v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 502 S.W.2d 722 (delivered December 5, 1973); Bayless v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 492 S.W.2d 588; Davis v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 430 S.W.2d 210; Lacefield v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 412 S.W.2d 906, and cases therein cited. App......