Morgan v. State, 46831

Citation502 S.W.2d 722
Decision Date05 December 1973
Docket NumberNo. 46831,46831
PartiesCharles Edward MORGAN, Jr., Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.
CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas. Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas

Marshal W. Dooley, Dallas, for appellant.

Henry Wade, Dist. Atty., and John E. Rapier, Asst. Dist. Atty., Dallas, Jim D. Vollers, State's Atty., and Buddy Stevens, Asst. State's Atty., Austin, for the State.

OPINION

DOUGLAS, Judge.

This is an appeal from a conviction for the offense of rape. Punishment was assessed by the court at ninety-nine years.

The sufficiency of the evidence is not challenged.

Appellant initially contends that the conviction should be reversed and the cause dismissed because he has been denied a speedy trial.

The record reflects that the appellant was indicted on September 29, 1967. He was convicted and sentenced to ninety-nine years' imprisonment on February 28, 1968. His notice of appeal was withdrawn and his motion for new trial was granted on December 3, 1968. The appellant's second trial began March 21, 1972, resulting in the return of a verdict of guilty.

'Four factors are generally considered in analyzing an alleged violation of an accused's right to a speedy trial: 'length of the delay, reason for the delay, prejudice to the defendant and whether or not there has been a waiver by the accused." Courtney v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 472 S.W.2d 151. See george v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 498 S.W.2d 202; McCarty v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 498 S.W.2d 212; Haas v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 498 S.W.2d 206; Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514, 92 S.Ct. 2182, 33 L.Ed.2d 101 (1972), and United States v. Marion, 404 U.S. 307, 92 S.Ct. 455, 30 L.Ed.2d 468 (1971).

As to the reason for the delay, there are entries on the docket sheet stating 'passed,' 'passed generally by agreement,' and two entries 'passed for appellant.' No other reason is shown. It does appear, however, that some of the delay was caused because attorneys appointed to represent appellant had withdrawn on three occasions. The reasons for these withdrawals do not appear in the record.

The record is silent as to any request or demand by the appellant for a speedy trial.

Further, there is no showing that the appellant was prejudiced by the delay or that the State intentionally sought to prejudice the appellant.

The appellant argues that he was prejudiced by the delay because an important witness, Detective Blessing, could not be produced for the trial and his testimony was relevant to the most important issues in the case.

There is no showing as to what Detective Blessing would have testified. Appellant did not attempt to have Detective Blessing's testimony from his first trial transcribed for use in his second trial.

Next, appellant contends that his written confession was not admissible as it was obtained as a result of an illegal detention.

The record shows that within two hours after his arrest the appellant was taken before a magistrate. The appellant...

To continue reading

Request your trial
8 cases
  • Vasquez v. State
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Texas
    • November 18, 2005
    ...851 S.W.2d at 254-55; Miniel v. State, 831 S.W.2d 310, 316-17 (Tex.Crim.App.1992); Hernandez, 819 S.W.2d at 812; Morgan v. State, 502 S.W.2d 722, 723 (Tex.Crim.App.1973). ...
  • Morgan v. Estelle
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (5th Circuit)
    • January 29, 1979
    ...on his direct appeal by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, the court of last resort in Texas in criminal matters. Morgan v. State, 502 S.W.2d 722 (Tex.Cr.App.1973). His petition for a writ of certiorari was denied by the United States Supreme Court without opinion on May 28, 1974. Morgan ......
  • Simmons v. State
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Texas. Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas
    • January 23, 1974
    ...at the time, even though the arrest may have been under invalid process or without any process or legal right.' Morgan v. State, 502 S.W.2d 722, (Tex.Cr.App., 1973), citing Lacefield v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 412 S.W.2d 906. An examination of the evidence, supra, reflects that there was ample ......
  • Hughes v. State
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Texas. Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas
    • March 15, 1978
    ...before the jury which raised that issue. Thus, the court did not err in refusing the charge. Myre v. State, supra; Morgan v. State, 502 S.W.2d 722 (Tex.Cr.App.1973). Appellant complains of the testimony given by the two psychiatrists at the punishment phase of the trial. He argues that thei......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT