Jackson v. State, 36807
| Decision Date | 27 May 1964 |
| Docket Number | No. 36807,36807 |
| Citation | 379 S.W.2d 896 |
| Parties | Carl JACKSON, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee. |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Leonard Howell, Midland, for appellant.
Leon B. Douglas, State's Atty., Austin, for the State.
The offense is the possession of whiskey, wine and vodka for the purpose of sale in a dry area; the punishment, 90 days in jail.
No statement of facts accompanies the record. From the transcript it appears that appellant plead guilty on January 20, and that motion for new trial was overruled on January 21, 'without the Defendant being present thereat, but being represented by his attorney.' It is only in those cases where the defendant desires to be present at the hearing of a motion for new trial and is denied such right that a reversal is called for, as will be seen by our opinion in Johnson v. State, 163 Tex.Cr.R. 101, 289 S.W.2d 249, in which we discuss Henderson v. State, 137 Tex.Cr.R. 18, 127 S.W.2d 902, upon which appellant relies.
We find no factual support in the record of the other contentions advanced in appellant's brief.
No reversible error appearing, the judgment is affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Coons v. State
...(1956). Reversal is required only where the defendant desires to be present at the hearing and is denied that right. Jackson v. State, 379 S.W.2d 896 (Tex.Crim.App.1964); Lacy v. State, 374 S.W.2d 244 (Tex.Crim.App.1963). The record does not reflect that appellant requested to be present or......
-
Gonzalez v. State
...because we have concluded that the court did not abuse its discretion in not holding an evidentiary hearing. See Jackson v. State, 379 S.W.2d 896, 896 (Tex.Crim.App.1964) (setting out that reversal is required only if the defendant desires to be present at the hearing, a hearing occurred, a......
-
Martinez v. State
...on a motion for new trial through a bench warrant is harmless if the defendant was not injured by the failure. See Jackson v. State, 379 S.W.2d 896, 896 (Tex. Crim. App. 1964) ("It is only in those cases where the defendant desires to be present at the hearing of a motion for new trial and ......
-
Kotara v. State, No. 13-08-00519-CR (Tex. App. 5/21/2009)
...is required only where the defendant desires to be present at the hearing and is denied that right. Id. (citing Jackson v. State, 379 S.W.2d 896 (Tex. Crim. App. 1964); Lacy v. State, 374 S.W.2d 244 (Tex. Crim. App. At the hearing on Kotara's motions for new trial, his appellate counsel sta......