Ex parte Thomas
Decision Date | 22 September 1982 |
Docket Number | No. 69010,69010 |
Citation | 638 S.W.2d 905 |
Parties | Ex parte Bobbie Louis THOMAS. |
Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
This proceeding involves an original application for a writ of habeas corpus. See Article V, Sec. 5, Tex.Const.
Applicant is seeking relief from an order directing him to serve sixty (60) to one hundred twenty (120) days in the Department of Corrections as a form of "shock probation" under the provisions of Article 42.12, Sec. 3f(b), V.A.C.C.P.
The applicant was convicted by a jury on June 25, 1982 of aggravated kidnapping (V.T.C.A., Penal Code, Sec. 20.04) and his punishment was assessed by the jury at ten (10) years' imprisonment and at a fine of $10,000.00. The jury in its verdict, however, recommended probation. In the formal judgment the trial court entered the following recitation:
"The jury verdict in this case being an affirmative finding that the defendant is convicted of a felony of the first degree and that he used a firearm during the commission of the offense and the court further also affirmatively finding that the defendant is convicted of a felony of the first degree and that he used a firearm in the commission of the offense, and the defendant having been granted probation, the Court accordingly, under the provisions of Article 42.12.3f(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, orders that the defendant be confined in the Texas Department of Corrections for not less than sixty (60) nor more than one hundred twenty (120) days ...."
Applicant contends that the indictment did not allege the use of a firearm in the commission of the offense, that the issue of the use of a firearm was not submitted to the jury, and that the jurors, being the exclusive triers of the facts, did not in their verdict or otherwise affirmatively find that a firearm was used in the commission of the offense. Applicant further argues that the court alone, and without authority, made the finding that a firearm was used and entered the controverted order of confinement in contravention of the jury's verdict recommending probation.
It was upon this basis that the applicant brought his original application for writ of habeas corpus. This court ordered the same filed and set and released the applicant upon his personal bond pending further order of this court.
V.T.C.A., Penal Code, Sec. 20.04 (Aggravated Kidnapping), provides:
Omitting the formal parts, the indictment alleges the applicant on or about January 27, 1981, "did then and there unlawfully intentionally and knowingly abduct another person, MICHAEL HARMON, with the intent to hold him for ransom and reward ...."
It thus appears that the applicant was indicted under the provisions of V.T.C.A., Penal Code, Sec. 20.04(a)(1), and there was no allegation that a firearm was used.
An examination of the court's charge reflects that the offense as alleged in the indictment was submitted to the jury. There was no requirement that the jury make a finding as to the use of a firearm. In fact, there is no mention or reference to a firearm in the court's charge to the jury.
At the guilt stage of the trial the jury returned the verdict as follows:
(Emphasis supplied.)
The verdict form returned at the penalty stage of the trial was as follows:
The jury made no other findings and there was no mention or reference of the use of a firearm in the verdict or verdicts returned.
It was thereafter that the trial court entered the order complained of in the formal judgment finding the jury in its verdict found affirmatively that the appellant had used a firearm in the commission of the offense and affirmatively found itself the use of a firearm.
It is clear from the above that the court was in error in finding that the jury by its verdict had made such affirmative finding.
Article 42.12, Sec. 3f(b), V.A.C.C.P., provides:
(Emphasis supplied.)
The above statute is vague as to who is to make the "affirmative finding" where a jury is the trier of the facts in a case of a felony of the second degree or higher. 1 In fact, the statute does not so provide.
Article 36.13, V.A.C.C.P., provides:
"Unless otherwise provided in this Code, the jury is the exclusive judge of the facts, but it is bound to receive the law from the court and be governed thereby." (Emphasis supplied.)
Article 38.04, V.A.C.C.P., provides:
"The jury, in all cases, is the exclusive judge of the facts proved, and of the weight to be given the testimony, except where it is provided by law that proof of any particular fact is to be taken as either conclusive or presumptive proof of the existence of another fact, or where the law directs that a certain degree of weight is to be attached to a certain species of evidence." (Emphasis supplied.)
It has long been said that the jurors are the exclusive judges of the facts proved, Weatherford v. State, 21 S.W. 251 (Tex.Cr.App.1893), or the issues of facts, Roberts v. State, 122 S.W. 388 (Tex.Cr.App.1909). It is frequently said that the jury is the exclusive judge of the facts,...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Fielder v. State
...of such a finding by the jury. We disagree. Fielder cites Barecky v. State, 639 S.W.2d 943 (Tex.Crim.App.1982), and Ex parte Thomas, 638 S.W.2d 905 (Tex.Crim.App.1982), as supporting her contention. These cases are distinguishable from the present case. In Ex parte Thomas, the defendant was......
-
Asberry v. State
...trier of fact is responsible for making the affirmative finding concerning the use or exhibition of a deadly weapon. Ex parte Thomas, 638 S.W.2d 905, 907 (Tex.Crim.App.1982). Thus, where the jury is the trier of fact the affirmative finding must be made by the jury. Adams v. State, 685 S.W.......
-
Abdnor v. State
...explicitly provides, that the "juror's are the exclusive judges of the facts ... [and] of the issues of facts." Ex parte Thomas, 638 S.W.2d 905, 907 (Tex.Cr.App.1982). See also, Penagraph v. State, 623 S.W.2d 341 (Tex.Cr.App.1981); Weatherford v. State, 31 Tex.Crim. 530, 21 S.W. 251 (App.18......
-
Flores v. State
...by limiting the jurors' understanding of what evidence could constitute” “use.” See Kirsch, 357 S.W.3d at 652 ; Ex parte Thomas, 638 S.W.2d 905, 907 (Tex.Crim.App.1982) (“[W]hether a firearm was used in the commission of an offense, etc., is a fact issue to be decided by the trier of the fa......
-
Offenses against property
...First-Degree. The jury, not the judge, must find the fact as to the use of a deadly weapon in committing the offense. Ex Parte Thomas , 638 S.W.2d 905 (Tex.Crim.App. 1982); Dawson v. State , 645 S.W.2d 915 (Tex. App.-Fort Worth 1983, pet. ref’d). §8:660 Charging Instruments An indictment ch......
-
Table of cases
...§15:04 Ex parte Stephens , 753 S.W.2d 208 (Tex.App.—Dallas 1988), aff’d., 806 S.W.2d 812 (Tex.Crim.App. 1991), §11:25 Ex parte Thomas , 638 S.W.2d 905 (Tex.Cr.App. 1982), §14:163 Ex parte Thomas , 34 S.W.3d 645 (Tex. App.—Waco 2000), §12:31 – F – Farhat v. State , 337 SW3d 302 (Tex.App. —Ft......
-
Intoxication Offenses and Punishment
...to decide the deadly weapon issue where the jury is fact-finder in both guilt/innocence and punishment phases. [ Ex parte Thomas , 638 S.W.2d 905, 907 (Tex.Cr.App. 1982); Easterling v. State , 710 S.W.2d 569, 581 (Tex. Cr.App. 1986); Sanders v. State , 25 S.W.3d 854, 856 (Tex.App.—Hous. [14......
-
Intoxication Offenses and Punishment
...to decide the deadly weapon issue where the jury is fact-finder in both guilt/innocence and punishment phases. [ Ex parte Thomas , 638 S.W.2d 905, 907 (Tex.Cr.App. 1982); Easterling v. State , 710 S.W.2d 569, 581 (Tex. Cr.App. 1986); Sanders v. State , 25 S.W.3d 854, 856 (Tex.App.—Hous. [14......