Castoria v. State
Decision Date | 13 January 1932 |
Docket Number | No. 14529.,14529. |
Citation | 47 S.W.2d 325 |
Parties | CASTORIA v. STATE. |
Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Appeal from District Court, Hemphill County; E. J. Pickens, Judge.
J. E. Castoria was convicted of transporting intoxicating liquor, and he appeals.
Reversed and remanded.
E. J. Cussen, of Canadian, and F. L. Henderson, of Bryan, for appellant.
Lloyd W. Davidson, State's Atty., of Austin, for the State.
The offense is transporting intoxicating liquor; the punishment, confinement in the penitentiary for three years.
The judgment of the court recites that appellant pleaded not guilty to the charge contained in the indictment. Looking to the charge of the court, we find that the jury were advised that appellant had pleaded guilty and had been properly admonished by the court as to the consequences of such plea. The jury were instructed in the charge to find the appellant guilty and to assess his punishment at any term of years not less than one nor more than five. It is apparent that the judgment of the court fails to follow the charge. If appellant entered a plea of guilty, it was necessary that the judgment should affirmatively show that the trial court properly admonished him as to the consequences of such plea, and that the court had passed on the question of the sanity of appellant, and had found him sane. In Coleman v. State, 35 Tex. Cr. R. 404, 33 S. W. 1083, this court, in discussing a similar question, said:
It is provided in article 501, C. C. P., that, if the accused pleaded guilty, he shall be admonished by the court of the consequences, and that no such plea shall be received, unless it plainly appear that the accused is sane and is uninfluenced by any consideration of fear, or by any persuasion or delusive hope of pardon prompting him to confess his guilt. In Evers v. State, 32 Tex. Cr. R. 283, 22 S. W. 1019, 1020, this court, speaking through Judge Davidson, said: In Taylor v. State, 88 Tex. Cr. R. 470, 227 S. W. 679, 684, in an opinion by Judge Lattimore, this court said: If appellant did not plead guilty, then the charge of the court was fundamentally erroneous in instructing the jury to find appellant guilty. Hence it is obvious that the failure of the judgment to follow the charge of the court leaves the record in such condition that a reversal must follow.
The judgment is reversed, and the cause remanded.
The foregoing opinion of the Commission of Appeals has been examined by the judges of the Court of Criminal Appeals and approved by the court.
On State's Motion for Rehearing.
In the motion for rehearing filed by the state, it is claimed that, while the judgment, as it appears in the transcript before this court and in the trial court, shows that the accused pleaded not guilty, in truth he pleaded guilty. Supporting this averment, there are attached to the motion the affidavits of the district judge, district attorney, district clerk, and the sheriff, stating that as a matter of fact the accused entered a plea of guilty. It is contended that the incompatibility of the recital of the judgment with that in the charge of the court, not having been made the subject of complaint in the court below, is not available as ground for reversal upon appeal. The nonexistence of the power of the Court of Criminal Appeals to make a change in the judgment of the trial court, such as that under consideration, by the use of affidavits impeaching the correctness of the judgment of the trial court, has often been declared. The most recent example is the case of Schwartz v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 46 S.W.(2d) 985, decided March 9, 1932, not yet reported [in State report]. See, also, McKee v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 42 S.W.(2d) 77, 79; Ex parte Maple, 116 Tex. Cr. R. 383, 33 S.W.(2d) 734; Williams v. State, 111 Tex. Cr. R. 511, 14 S.W. (2d) 274. Analogous cases are the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Perkins v. State
...erroneous for the trial court to instruct the jury to find an accused guilty when he has pleaded not guilty. Castoria v. State, 119 Tex.Cr.R. 193, 47 S.W.2d 325 (1932); Manning v. State, 66 Tex.Cr.R. 180, 145 S.W. 938 More recently, in Mullaney v. Wilbur, --- U.S. ---, 95 S.Ct. 1881, 44 L.E......