Lee v. State
Decision Date | 13 July 1977 |
Docket Number | No. 53397,53397 |
Parties | Larry Corbin LEE, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee. |
Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
GREEN, Commissioner.
In a trial before a jury appellant was convicted of attempted burglary. See Art. 1402, V.A.P.C. Punishment, enhanced under the provisions of Art. 63, V.A.P.C., was assessed at life.
Although not raised by any ground of error in appellant's brief, we find that the record presents a serious question of whether the judge who presided over this trial was disqualified by reason of having previously been counsel for the State in the case. The issue of his disqualification was raised in the trial court by motion of the appellant requesting that the judge disqualify by reason of his earlier activities concerning this case while he was Chief of the Trial Division of the Jefferson County District Attorney's Office in 1973. The issue of disqualification of the judge involves the jurisdiction of the court to act and should be considered by us as unassigned error in the interest of justice. Art. 40.09, Sec. 13, V.A.C.C.P.; Ex parte McDonald, Tex.Cr.App., 469 S.W.2d 173; Hathorne v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 459 S.W.2d 826; Ex parte Washington, Tex.Cr.App., 442 S.W.2d 391.
Art. 5, Sec. 11, Texas State Constitution, in its pertinent parts provides as follows:
Art. 30.01, V.A.C.C.P., as applicable here reads:
"No judge or justice of the peace shall sit in any case . . . where he has been of counsel for the State or the accused, or . . ."
The record reflects that the indictment was presented by the grand jury September 6, 1973, and was filed as Cause No. 30,989 in the Criminal District Court of Jefferson County. Hon. Larry Gist, who presided as the judge of that court over the instant trial of this case in March, 1975, was in the fall of 1973 Chief of the Trial Division of the Office of the District Attorney of Jefferson County. At a pre-trial hearing conducted March 17, 1975, before Judge Gist on appellant's motion requesting him to disqualify in this case, appellant placed in evidence a letter written by Gist on November 15, 1973 in his official capacity as Chief, Trial Division, Jefferson County District Attorney's Office, to appellant's then attorney, reading as follows:
The oath being waived, prosecuting attorney Thomas Moses testified as follows:
Judge Gist then dictated the following statement into the record:
The court overruled appellant's motion to disqualify and conducted the instant trial as the judge presiding. The State's file referred to in Judge Gist's statement was forwarded to this Court in a sealed envelope as a part of the record. 1
Disqualification of a judge arising from a constitutional or statutory provision to preside over the trial of a case affects jurisdiction, and cannot be waived, and the judgment rendered is a nullity and void and subject even to collateral attack. Ex parte McDonald, Tex.Cr.App., 469 S.W.2d 673; Ex parte Washington, Tex.Cr.App., 442 S.W.2d 391; Woodland v. State, 147 Tex.Cr.R. 84, 178 S.W.2d 528; Patterson v. State, 83 Tex.Cr.R. 169, 202 S.W. 88. Also see Postal Mutual Indemnity Co. v. Ellis, 140 Tex. 570, 169 S.W.2d 482 (1943); Indemnity Insurance Co. of North America v. McGee, 163 Tex. 412, 356 S.W.2d 666 (1962).
We have reviewed the State's file forwarded to this Court as aforesaid and find nothing therein except the above letter which associates Judge Gist, as former Chief of the Trial Division of the District Attorney's Office, with the investigation or prosecution of this case. Much of the file relates to matters occurring after November 15, 1973, the date of Gist's letter, which were not shown to have been brought to his attention when he was Assistant District Attorney. However, the file as the letter states he reviewed it contains a summary of complainant's statements to the investigating officers, detailed reports of the arresting and investigating officers, appellant's criminal record, and the request of the District Attorney's Office for Texas Department of Correction penitentiary packets to give information for the indictment of appellant as a habitual criminal. It was on the basis of this information that Gist, as Chief of the Trial Division, "reviewed" this case and found it to be a "very serious offense in and of itself, and in addition, the defendant's record is deplorable." Further, as stated by Chief Gist, "In view of all ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
McClure v. State, 62125
...(Tex.Cr.App.1971); Grays v. State, 487 S.W.2d 348 (Tex.Cr.App.1972); Butler v. State, 462 S.W.2d 596 (Tex.Cr.App.1971); Lee v. State, 555 S.W.2d 121 (Tex.Cr.App.1977); Cevilla v. State, 515 S.W.2d 676 (Tex.Cr.App.1974); Rich v. State, 1 Tex.App. 206 (1876); Sutton v. State, 41 Tex. 513 (187......
-
Monroe v. Blackmon
...Furthermore, disqualification may even be raised for the first time in a collateral attack on the judgment. See Lee v. State, 555 S.W.2d 121, 124 (Tex.Crim.App.1977); Ex Parte Washington, 442 S.W.2d 391, 393 (Tex.Crim.App.1969). Either a trial court or appellate court may raise the question......
-
Gamez v. State
...§ 1861, p. 772. The issue may be raised at any time. See Ex parte Miller, 696 S.W.2d 908, 910 (Tex.Cr.App.1985); Lee v. State, 555 S.W.2d 121, 122 (Tex.Cr.App.1977); Woodland v. State, 147 Tex.Cr.R. 84, 178 S.W.2d 528 Under these provisions "... a judge is clearly disqualified if he has act......
-
McElwee v. McElwee
...Indep. Sch. Dist., 632 S.W.2d at 148. A trial court or an appellate court may raise the issue on its own motion. See Lee v. State, 555 S.W.2d 121, 122 (Tex.Crim.App.1977); City of Houston v. Houston Lighting & Power Co., 530 S.W.2d 866, 868 (Tex.Civ.App.--Houston [14th Dist.] 1975, writ ref......
-
Pretrial Motions
...289 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992). Disqualification may be raised for the first time in a collateral attack on the judgment. See Lee v. State, 555 S.W.2d 121 (Tex. Crim. App. 1977); In re K.E.M . , 89 S.W.3d 814 (Tex.App.—Corpus Christi 2002, no pet. ). However, disqualification cannot be raised o......
-
Table of Cases
...pet. ref’d ), §15:102.9 Lee v. State, 418 S.W.3d 892, 901 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2013, pet.ref’d ), §16:72.12 Lee v. State, 555 S.W.2d 121 (Tex. Crim. App. 1977), §12:45.4 Lee v. State, 683 S.W.2d 8 (Tex. Crim. App. 1985), §9:141 Lee v. State, 874 S.W.2d 220 (Tex.App.—Houston [1st ......
-
Trial Motions
...1993, pet. ref’d ). Disqualification may be raised for the first time in a collateral attack on the judgment. See Lee v. State , 555 S.W.2d 121 (Tex.Cr.App. 1977); In re K.E.M. , 89 S.W.3d 814 (Tex.App.—Corpus Christi 2002, no pet. ). However, this cannot be raised on post-trial habeas wher......
-
Pretrial Motions
...289 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992). Disqualification may be raised for the first time in a collateral attack on the judgment. See Lee v. State, 555 S.W.2d 121 (Tex. Crim. App. 1977); In re K.E.M . , 89 S.W.3d 814 (Tex.App.—Corpus Christi 2002, no pet. ). However, disqualification cannot be raised o......