Miller v. State
| Decision Date | 09 February 1898 |
| Citation | 44 S.W. 162 |
| Parties | MILLER v. STATE. |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Appeal from district court, Denton county; D. E. Barrett, Judge.
Will Miller was convicted of burglary, and he appeals. Affirmed.
Mann Trice, for the State.
Appellant pleaded guilty to the charge of burglary, and was given three years in the penitentiary. Prior to his trial defendant was informed of the fact that the record of his previous conviction for theft in Hill county, committed at the same time as this burglary, was not then in court. However, when the case was called for trial, the county attorney informed counsel for defendant that, under the direction of the judge, the record of said conviction would be there, and would be used as evidence upon which to predicate the judgment cumulating this sentence. He was then tendered the privilege of withdrawing his plea of guilty, and entering a plea of not guilty, but declined. The record indicates his view of the matter to be that, as soon as the jury returned a verdict upon his plea of guilty, he would file his formal motion for a new trial, have it overruled, and be sentenced at once. The motion for a new trial was made, but the court declined to pronounce sentence until the copy of the records from Hill county could be obtained. As soon as this was done, appellant's counsel was sent for, and notified that sentence would be pronounced against defendant, and requested him to be present. This counsel declined, and left the court room. The judge then had the defendant brought in court, and pronounced sentence upon him. There are several objections urged in appellant's bill of exceptions to this proceeding; among others, "that appellant's counsel was not given an opportunity to examine, contradict, and impeach the record from Hill county." In answer to this, it may be stated that counsel declined to be present or have anything to do with the matter, and asked no time. In fact, he was notified about 10 days before sentence was passed, by the county attorney, in open court, that such would be the course pursued by the state, and it is not shown in the bill how he could have possibly impeached the record from Hill county. The record is certified copies of the judgment and sentence. He objects also "because these certified copies were not offered in evidence before the jury on the trial." Suffice it to say that this was a matter with which the jury had no concern. See Ex parte Crawford (Tex. Cr....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Turner v. State
...where the defendant had been convicted of a felony in some other county or at some former term of the same court. Miller v. State, 44 S.W. 162 (Tex.Cr.App.1898). The amendment also made the statute applicable to misdemeanors where imprisonment was part of the punishment as well as felonies.......
-
Delk v. Com.
...court may be made cumulative with a prior sentence of another court. See Ex parte Lawson, 98 Tex.Cr.R. 544, 266 S.W. 1101; Miller v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 44 S.W. 162; Ex parte Sichofsky, 201 Cal. 360, 257 P. 439, 53 A.L.R. 615; Ex parte White, 50 Okl.Cr. 163, 296 P. 756; Crider v. Clark, 182......
-
Ex Parte Lawson
...prior convictions be at the same term of court. Ex parte Moseley, 30 Tex. App. 338, 17 S. W. 418; nor in the same court, Miller v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 44 S. W. 162. The failure to embrace in the second or subsequent sentence the order making it cumulative with the prior conviction leaves ......
-
Batson v. United States, 2718.
...of the trial under the Louisiana statute, and it was not error to pronounce sentence in the absence of defendant's counsel. Miller v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 44 S.W. 162, held that it was not error to sentence the defendant in the absence of his attorney where his counsel knew of the proceeding......