Goss v. State
| Decision Date | 08 June 1927 |
| Docket Number | (No. 10832.) |
| Citation | 298 S.W. 585 |
| Parties | GOSS v. STATE. |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Appeal from District Court, Hunt County; J. M. Melson, Judge.
S. E. Goss was convicted of murder, and he appeals. Appeal dismissed.
Cunningham & Lipscomb, of Bonham, for appellant.
Sam D. Stinson, State's Atty., and Robt. M. Lyles, Asst. State's Atty., both of Austin, for the State.
Murder is the offense; punishment fixed at confinement in the penitentiary for a period of 25 years.
A motion to dismiss the appeal is made by the state. It appears that the appellant, on the 14th day of October, 1926, was convicted in the district court of Hunt county, Tex., of the offense of murder, and his punishment fixed at confinement in the penitentiary for a period of 25 years. Notice of appeal was given on the 27th day of November following. After the notice of appeal, and before the record was filed in this court, the Governor of this state, on the 10th day of January, 1927, commuted the punishment of the appellant to confinement in the penitentiary for a period of 2 years. This act of clemency was accepted in writing by the appellant upon the same day. After the preliminary recitals, the proclamation of the Governor reads thus:
"Therefore, under the powers vested in me as Governor of the state of Texas, I hereby reduce and commute the said sentence from five to twenty-five years assessed against the defendant, S. E. Goss, in the district court of Hunt county, Texas, to a term of two years' confinement in the penitentiary, said term to begin on the 10th day of January, A. D. 1927, and to continue two years under the rules, regulations, and laws governing penitentiaries."
After the proclamation was issued and accepted, the appellant, over the opposition of the state's attorney, was admitted to bail pending his appeal, and is now at large on bond. The Constitution has vested in the Governor the power to commute the punishment "after conviction." See Const. of Texas, art. 4, § 11. While in some sense the term "conviction" applies to a final judgment of guilty, that term, as used in our Constitution, means a verdict "of guilty," and a pardon granted pending appeal is valid. See Ruling Case Law, vol. 20, p. 540; Duke v. State, 106 Tex. Cr. R. 154, 291 S. W. 539; also State v. Alexander, 76 N. C. 231, 22 Am. Rep. 675; Gilmore v. State, 3 Okl. Cr. 639, 108 P. 416, 139 Am. St. Rep. 981; State v. Garrett, 135 Tenn. 617, 188 S. W. 58, L. R. A. 1917B, 567; People v. Marsh, 125 Mich. 410, 84 N. W. 472, 51 L. R. A. 461, 84 Am. St. Rep. 584. The issuance of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ex parte Renier
...Whan v. State, 485 S.W.2d 275 (Tex.Cr.App.1972); Ex parte Hayden, 152 Tex.Cr.R. 517, 215 S.W.2d 620 (1948); Goss v. State, 107 Tex.Cr.R. 659, 298 S.W. 585 (1927). As for "finality," the term has a variety of substantive and procedural consequences, all of which are closely related. For exam......
-
Graham v. State
...For fair criticism of Snodgrass v. State, 67 Tex.Cr.R. 615, 150 S.W. 162 (1912) and identification of the point in Goss v. State, 107 Tex.Cr.R. 659, 298 S.W. 585 (1927), see my dissenting opinion in Clark v. State, supra.5 Grant of presidential clemency to Richard M. Nixon is a modern demon......
-
Ex parte Giles
...opinion's interpretation of the term 'after conviction' is Duke v. State, 106 Tex.Cr.R. 154, 291 S.W. 539 (1927); Goss v. State, 107 Tex.Cr.R. 659, 298 S.W. 585 (1927). See also 44 Tex.Jur.2d, Pardon, Reprieve, Etc., Sec. 7, p. Such construction is strengthened by the use of the same term i......
-
State ex rel. Smith v. Blackwell
...used in Article IV, Section 11, of our Constitution. See Duke v. State, 106 Tex.Cr.R. 154, 291 S.W. 539 (1927); Goss v. State, 107 Tex.Cr.R. 659, 298 S.W. 585 (1927); 44 Tex.Jur.2d, Pardon, Reprieve, Etc., Sec. 7, p. The Texas Controlled Substances Act clearly represents a re-thinking, a ch......