Castillo v. State, 40823
| Decision Date | 29 November 1967 |
| Docket Number | No. 40823,40823 |
| Citation | 421 S.W.2d 112 |
| Parties | Pablo CASTILLO, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee. |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Bryan Wingo, Corpus Christi, for appellant.
Sam L. Jones, Jr., Dist. Atty., Douglas Tinker, Asst. Dist. Atty., Corpus Christi, and Leon B. Douglas, State's Atty., Austin, for the State.
This is an appeal from a conviction for Murder with Malice Aforethought based on an indictment charging the appellant with killing Humberto Perez 'by stabbing him with a knife.' After a verdict of guilty by the jury at the trial which commenced on the 13th day of March, 1967, the appellant requested the judge to assess punishment. Following a hearing on punishment which reflected that this 20-year-old appellant had twice previously been convicted of burglaries and of the misdemeanor offenses of Aggravated Assault and Unlawfully Carrying a Pistol, the judge assessed punishment at 35 years confinement in the Texas Department of Corrections.
We are confronted at the outset with the question of whether appellant's brief assigning his grounds of error on appeal was timely filed. See Article 40.09, Sec. 9, Vernon's Ann.C.C.P. We conclude that it was not. The District Clerk notified appellant's employed counsel by certified mail of the completion of the record on July 13, 1967. See Article 40.09, Sec. 7, V.A.C.C.P. On July 31, 1967, the trial court approved the record noting that no objections were offered thereto. On September 29, 1967, appellant's brief was filed with the clerk. Such filing was not within the 30 days after the approval of the record by the court as required by Article 40.09, Sec. 9, supra, nor do we find any indication in the record before us that the trial court granted any extension of time for such filing. Therefore the grounds of error set forth in such brief are not before us for review, nor do we find any unassigned error which in the interest of justice we would be called upon to review. Article 40.09, Sec. 13, V.A.C.C.P.
We observe, however, that appellant's untimely filed brief contained three grounds of error. In his first he complains that the indictment, which was not introduced into evidence, was taken to the jury room with the exhibits. There is not evidence at all in the record before us to show that this occurred but even if it had, no error is reflected. Byrd v. State, Tex.Cr.App, 373 S.W.2d 745; Lindsey v. State, 108 Tex.Cr.R. 187, 299 S.W. 399. Cf. Urban v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 387 S.W.2d 396.
In his second ground of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Stoddard v. State
...Sewell v. State, 440 S.W.2d 852 (Tex.Cr.App.1969); Harlan v. State, 430 S.W.2d 213 (Tex.Cr.App.1968); Castillo v. State, 421 S.W.2d 112 (Tex.Cr.App.1967). Appellant raises only one ground of error in his untimely filed brief. He contends that the trial court erred in admitting evidence whic......
-
Aranda v. State
...need not be complied with in order to introduce a confession against a witness for impeachment purposes, see Castillo v. State, 421 S.W.2d 112 (Tex.Cr.App.1967), even though the same confession might be inadmissible to impeach the same witness at his own trial. Stutes further stated, "We ho......
-
Stutes v. State
...V.A.C.C.P. need not be complied with in order to introduce a confession against a witness for impeachment purposes, Castillo v. State, 421 S.W.2d 112 (Tex.Cr.App.1967), even though the same confession might be inadmissible to impeach the same witness at his own trial. Butler v. State, supra......
-
Smith v. State, 44642
...Sewell v. State, 440 S.W.2d 852 (Tex.Crim.App.1969); Harlan v. State, 430 S.W.2d 213 Tex.Crim.App.1968); Castillo v. State, 421 S.W.2d 112 (Tex.Crim.App.1967). Appellant raises only one ground of error in his untimely filed brief. We have examined the record and have concluded that the grou......