Langford v. State, 56977
| Decision Date | 28 March 1979 |
| Docket Number | No. 56977,56977 |
| Citation | 578 S.W.2d 737 |
| Parties | Michael Wayne LANGFORD, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee. |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
M. Bruce Fort, Texas City, for appellant.
James F. Hury, Jr., Dist. Atty., and Michael P. Heiskell, Asst. Dist. Atty., Galveston, Robert Huttash, State's Atty., Austin, for the State.
Before the Court en banc:
OPINION ON MOTION FOR REHEARING
Leave to file the State's motion for rehearing was granted by the Court en banc to review the opinion by the panel which held that appellant was entrapped as a matter of law. One judge concurred in the result and one judge dissented. The local prosecutor filed a late motion for rehearing. This Court may grant a rehearing if a motion is filed within fifteen days after the opinion has been handed down. Rule 12c, Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals, January 1, 1978. The Court, within its discretion, may grant a rehearing at any time during the term of the original opinion.
In the present case the term of the court had expired and the judgment became final before the motion for leave to file for rehearing was filed. Because of this, the reversal of the order revoking probation will not be disturbed. However, it should be noted that the Court as a whole will not be bound by the holding of one judge of the panel and one judge concurring in the result.
The one judge opinion on original submission did not set out the contradictory as well as the agreed testimony.
Officer Frank Fleming asked the appellant to assist him in catching burglars. One of the conditions was that appellant had to consult with Fleming first, so that the participants could be caught during a burglary. Fleming did not tell appellant to commit a burglary in another county. Appellant did not inform Fleming of the burglary beforehand. Appellant testified that Officer Fleming told him some time prior to the burglary "to cool it, to lay off" for a while. Appellant admitted taking part in the burglary. After he was arrested he was warned by an officer and a magistrate of his rights. He testified that the officer promised him nothing and that he confessed to taking part in the burglary.
Appellant did not report to Officer Fleming between the time of the burglary until he learned that a warrant had issued for his arrest some two days later. Appellant did not tell the officer who took the confession or the magistrate that he was authorized by Fleming to take part in the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Whitsey v. State
...S.W.2d 801, 804 (Tex.Crim.App.1984), or a judge, as in Bellah v. State, 653 S.W.2d 795, 796 (Tex.Crim.App.1983) and Langford v. State, 578 S.W.2d 737, 739 (Tex.Crim.App.1979). Usually, the Court simply writes that "[t]he trier of fact is the sole judge of the weight and credibility of the w......
-
Ex parte Williams
...but the jurisdiction in that instance is limited by the provisions of Art. 42.12, supra. 4 In this regard, see Langford v. State, 578 S.W.2d 737 (Tex.Cr.App.1979), in which a majority of this Court disagreed with the original panel opinion that was filed in that cause, see Langford v. State......
-
Soto v. State
...and the precedential worth of Langford v. State, 571 S.W.2d 326 (Tex.Cr.App.1978) was not high at the time. See Langford v. State, 578 S.W.2d 737 (Tex.Cr.App.1979). However, I did urge that a factfinder should understand that "the informant could have entrapped the defendant in a variety of......
-
Lee v. State
...the credibility of the witnesses and to determine whether the allegations in the motion to revoke are true or not. Langford v. State, 578 S.W.2d 737, 739 (Tex.Crim.App.1979). This Court must therefore view the evidence presented at the revocation proceeding in a light most favorable to the ......