Beebe v. State
| Decision Date | 26 June 1991 |
| Docket Number | No. 1113-88,1113-88 |
| Citation | 811 S.W.2d 604 |
| Parties | James BEEBE, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee. |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Hugh J. Plummer, Houston, for appellant.
George J. Filley, III, Dist. Atty., and Laura A. Weiser, Asst. Dist. Atty., Victoria, Robert Huttash, State's Atty., Austin, for the State.
Before the court en banc.
OPINION ON STATE'S PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW
Appellant was convicted by a jury of the misdemeanor offense of terroristic threat. Tex.Penal Code, § 22.07(a)(2). The jury assessed punishment at 180 days confinement, probated, and a $1,000 fine. The Corpus Christi Court of Appeals reversed the judgment of the trial court and remanded for a new trial. Beebe v. State, 756 S.W.2d 759 (Tex.App.--Corpus Christi 1988). We granted the State's petition for discretionary review, pursuant to Tex.R.App.P. 200(c)(2) and (c)(3), to determine whether: (1) the Court of Appeals erred in holding that the trial court's denial of appellant's request for an additional ten days to prepare for trial, pursuant to Tex.Crim.Proc.Code art. 28.10, was not subject to a harmless error analysis; (2) the Court of Appeals erred in holding that the "ten days" rule of art. 28.10 cannot be waived; and (3) the Court of Appeals erred in finding that appellant preserved error. We will affirm.
In its third ground for review, the State asserts that the appellant failed to preserve error because he did not obtain an adverse ruling from the trial court on his request for additional time. We disagree.
On March 2, 1987, the trial court held a pretrial hearing on appellant's motion to quash. The court denied appellant's motion, and allowed the State to amend the information to include the manner and means of the assault under § 22.07(a)(2). Appellant's counsel then attempted to request additional time to prepare for trial:
Appellant, perhaps inartfully, did make a request for additional time, and the trial court ruled adversely on appellant's request by stating that the court would attempt to dispose of all pending cases if "humanly possible" in the morning. See Evans v. State, 622 S.W.2d 866 (Tex.Cr App.1981) (); Tex.R.App.Pro. 52. We find that the trial court's response to appellant's request was sufficient to meet the requirements of Tex.R.App.P. 52. The State's third ground for review is overruled.
In its first ground for review, the State contends the Court of Appeals erred in holding that the trial court's denial of appellant's request for an additional ten days to prepare for trial, pursuant to art. 28.10, is not subject to a harmless error analysis under Tex.R.App.P. 81(b)(2).
The Court of Appeals primarily relied on decisions of this Court interpreting similar provisions. See Peters v. State, 575 S.W.2d 560, 561 (Tex.Cr.App.1979); Johnson v. State, 567 S.W.2d 214, 216 (Tex.Cr.App.1978).
In Sodipo v. State, No. 1390-88 (Tex.Cr.App. Sept. 12, 1990) this Court found that art. 28.10(a) was "mandatory in nature," and that the trial court had erred when it denied Sodipo's request for additional time after the State was allowed to amend the indictment on the day of trial. We further concluded that the provision in art. 28.10(a) giving the defendant ten days to prepare for trial after the State amends an indictment "cannot be subjected to a harm analysis in any meaningful manner, because the record will not reveal any concrete data from which an appellate court can meaningfully gauge or quantify the effect of the error." Sodipo, supra slip op. at 5. In the instant case, appellant was tried eight days after the State was allowed to amend the indictment. Following the holding in Sodipo, we find that the Court of Appeals was correct in not subjecting this error to a harm analysis. The State's first ground for review is overruled.
In its second ground for review, the State contends that the Court of Appeals erred in holding that art. 28.10 cannot be waived. The State argues that appellant waived his right to ten days preparation for trial by failing to ask for ten days; by failing to object to the trial court's alleged denial; and by announcing ready for trial.
As discussed above, we find that appellant's trial attorney did...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Rey v. State
...judge "implicitly overruled" defendant's objection to State's question by directing witness to answer question); Beebe v. State, 811 S.W.2d 604, 605 (Tex.Crim.App.1991) (where defendant requested additional time and trial court stated he would attempt to dispose of all pending cases if "hum......
-
Eastep v. State
...486, 487 (Tex.Cr.App.1991), the alteration of a weapon in an aggravated assault indictment was an amendment. 1 In Beebe v. State, 811 S.W.2d 604, 606 (Tex.Cr.App.1991), the addition of the manner and means of committing an offense was an amendment. 2 In Garcia v. State, 928 S.W.2d 666 (Tex.......
-
Warmowski v. State
...of the error," will require automatic reversal. Sodipo v. State, 815 S.W.2d 551, 554 (Tex.Crim.App.1990); see also Beebe v. State, 811 S.W.2d 604, 605 (Tex.Crim.App.1991). The court in Sodipo further noted [T]he distinctive characteristic of these violations [which require automatic reversa......
-
State v. Kelley
..."implicitly overruled" defendant's objection to the State's question by directing witness to answer question); Beebe v. State, 811 S.W.2d 604, 605 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991) (when defendant requested additional time and trial court stated he would attempt to dispose of all pending cases if "hum......
-
Table of cases
...[1st Dist.] 1983, no pet.), §7:71 Bedwell v. State , 142 Tex.Crim. 599, 155 S.W.2d 930 (App. 1941), §13:40 Beebe v. State , 811 S.W.2d 604 (Tex.Crim.App. 1991), §16:133 Beeman v. State , 86 S.W.3d 613 (Tex.Crim.App. 2002), §7:30 A-522 Table of Cases A-523 Belcher v. State , 93 S.W.3d 593 (T......
-
Pretrial Motions
...S.W.2d 486 (Tex. Crim. App.1991); Eastep. The addition of the manner and means of committing an offense is an amendment. Beebe v. State , 811 S.W.2d 604 (Tex. Crim. App.1991); Eastep. The alteration of the alleged date is an amendment. Garcia v. State , 928 S.W.2d 666 (Tex. App.— Corpus Chr......
-
Pretrial Motions
...Eastep. 12-41 P RETRIAL M OTIONS §12:95 The addition of the manner and means of committing an offense is an amendment. Beebe v. State , 811 S.W.2d 604 (Tex. Crim. App.1991); Eastep. The alteration of the alleged date is an amendment. Garcia v. State , 928 S.W.2d 666 (Tex.App.— Corpus Christ......
-
Charging Instruments
...announcement of ready for trial after an adverse ruling on a request for additional time does not constitute a waiver. [ Beebe v. State , 811 S.W.2d 604 (Tex.Crim.App. 1991).] [§§16:134-16:139 Reserved] VII. LOST INDICTMENT §16:140 Lost Indictment Does Not Affect Jurisdiction The Texas Cons......