McBride v. State, 47944
Decision Date | 03 April 1974 |
Docket Number | No. 47944,47944 |
Citation | 519 S.W.2d 433 |
Parties | Paul Anthony McBRIDE, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee. |
Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Jake C. Cook (Court appointed), Fort Worth, for appellant.
Tim Curry, Dist. Atty., ,L. T. Wilson, Bill Mills and R. A. Sewell, Asst. Dist. Attys., Fort Worth, Jim D. Vollers, State's Atty., Austin, for the State.
The offense is robbery by firearms; the punishment, 50 years.
Trial was held in March of 1973.
Ground of error number one complains of the argument of the prosecutor at the guilt-innocence stage of the trial, when, in speaking of the offense of robbery by firearms, he said:
The voir dire is not brought forward with this record, but we can conclude from the above that the abolition of the death penalty had been explained to the jury at the time of their selection. This being true, the prosecutor, in his plea for law enforcement, did not commit reversible error.
By ground of error number two the appellant contends that he was deprived of ten days in which to prepare for trial as provided by Article 26.04, V.A.C.C.P.
This contention was raised for the first time at the hearing on the motion for new trial. At trial the appellant announced ready and no motion for continuance was filed. This record does not reflect when counsel was appointed, and it is therefore not controlled by Crothers v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 480 S.W.2d 642, where the record affirmatively showed that the defendant's counsel was appointed on the day that the trial commenced. It is undisputed that counsel had been appointed in ample time to represent this appellant in another cause pending against him, but it appears that through inadvertence no formal notice had been given counsel as to...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Moreno v. State
...supra; Henson v. State, 530 S.W.2d 584 (Tex.Cr.App.1975). See also Davis v. State, 513 S.W.2d 928 (Tex.Cr.App.1974). In McBride v. State, 519 S.W.2d 433 (Tex.Cr.App.1974), the record did not reflect when the appointment of counsel was made. There was no formal order or docket notation couns......
-
Marin v. State
...has been given the mandatory preparation time for trial provided by the statute." Id., 530 S.W.2d at 585 (citing McBride v. State, 519 S.W.2d 433, 434 (Tex.Cr.App.1974); Davis v. State, 513 S.W.2d 928, 930 (Tex.Cr.App.1974); and, Moore, supra.). In Ex parte Dowden, 408 S.W.2d 512 (Tex.Cr.Ap......
-
Hamel v. State
...been satisfied. Henson v. State, 530 S.W.2d 584 (Tex.Cr.App.1975); Guzman v. State, 521 S.W.2d 267 (Tex.Cr.App.1975); McBride v. State, 519 S.W.2d 433 (Tex.Cr.App.1974); Davis v. State, 513 S.W.2d 928 (Tex.Cr.App.1974). Defense counsel conceded that he had had more than three months to prep......
-
Henson v. State, 50702
...that determines whether a defendant has been given the mandatory preparation time for trial provided by the statute. McBride v. State, 519 S.W.2d 433; Davis v. State, 513 S.W.2d 928; Moore v. State, 493 S.W.2d 844. In the instant case, appellant had ample time to prepare his defense to the ......