Newton v. State
Decision Date | 27 October 1982 |
Docket Number | No. 215-82,215-82 |
Citation | 641 S.W.2d 530 |
Parties | Bobby Dan NEWTON, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee. |
Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Robert Udashen, Dallas, for appellant.
Henry Wade, Dist. Atty., and John D. Nation, Kevin Byrne, Mary Ludwick and R.K. Weaver, Asst. Dist. Atty., Dallas, Robert Huttash, State's Atty., Austin, for the State.
Before the court en banc.
OPINION ON APPELLANT'S PETITION FOR REVIEW
Appellant was convicted of burglary and punishment, enhanced pursuant to V.T.C.A., Penal Code Sec. 12.42(d), was assessed at life. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction. Newton v. State, 629 S.W.2d 206. We granted appellant's petition for discretionary review to consider the three grounds raised therein. We find the Court of Appeals erroneously disposed of the ground of error that asserted a violation of the Speedy Trial Act, Art. 32A.02, V.A.C.C.P., and therefore reverse the conviction.
The record reflects appellant was indicted on September 29, 1978. The State filed an announcement of ready for trial on October 9, 1978. The assistant district attorney assigned to the case testified appellant was not arrested until over a year later, in November of 1979. Trial was in May 1980.
In disposing of this ground of error the Court of Appeals relied on the rule that the State's announcement of ready within the statutory time period establishes a prima facie showing of compliance with the Act. Barfield v. State, 586 S.W.2d 538. Upon such a showing the burden shifts to the defendant to show the State was not ready within the prescribed time limit. Barfield, supra. Here the record shows appellant's absence for over a year. The Court of Appeals ruled, and the State argues, that the absence of a defendant does not rebut that prima facie showing. With this conclusion we are unable to agree, because such a construction would render several provisions of the Speedy Trial Act meaningless. As observed by the Court of Appeals in Lyles v. State, 636 S.W.2d 268 (Tex.App.--El Paso 1982):
Art. 32A.02, Sec. 4, V.A.C.C.P., provides in relevant part:
Because the statute specifically excludes time periods when the defendant is absent under the limited circumstances stated in Sec. 4(4), (5) and (9) quoted above, it is obvious that mere absence of the defendant is a circumstance that, except for those specific statutory exclusions, does not toll the statute and therefore prevents the State from being ready within the meaning of the statute. If the absence of the defendant was intended by the Legislature to have no effect on the readiness of the State, there would be no need for the statutory exclusions of Sec. 4(4), (5) and (9). We therefore hold that appellant's absence effectively rebutted the prima facie showing of readiness made by the State.
Upon rebuttal by demonstration that the State was not ready for trial within the time allowed by the statute, the burden shifted back to the State Phipps v. State, 630 S.W.2d 942. The potentially applicable exclusions under the statute for delay resulting from a defendant's absence are those quoted above. There is no evidence in the record that the provisions of Sec. 4(4)(B), (5) or (9) apply. The only provision relied on by the State in its alternative argument before this Court is Sec. 4(4)(A).
The State argues that the trial court could have found appellant was attempting to avoid apprehension, under Sec. 4(4)(A). As pointed...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
DeVaughn v. State
...State did not and could not have secured his presence for trial until November 9, 1982, the date of his arrest. In Newton v. State, 641 S.W.2d 530, 530 (Tex.Crim.App.1982), the Court held that the accused's absence at the time of the State's announcement of ready conclusively rebuts the pri......
-
Alexander v. State
...594 S.W.2d 429, 432 (Tex.Crim.App.1980); Newton v. State, 629 S.W.2d 206, 209 (Tex.App.--Dallas), rev'd on other grounds, 641 S.W.2d 530 (Tex.Crim.App.1982). Point of error three is To recapitulate, we hold that the evidence is sufficient to support appellant's conviction. Further, we must ......
-
Williams v. State, No. 2-07-415-CR (Tex. App. 1/15/2009)
...at trial and give evidence against himself. Newton v. State, 629 S.W.2d 206, 207 (Tex. App.-Dallas), rev'd on other grounds, 641 S.W.2d 530 (Tex. Crim. App. 1982); Bryan v. State, 837 S.W.2d 637, 643 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992). However, the defendant's Fifth Amendment right may be waived as lon......
-
Massey v. State
...not rely on this announcement for good reason: on that date, appellant was not in custody and had not been indicted. Newton v. State, 641 S.W.2d 530 (Tex.Cr.App.1982) (absence of defendant rebuts announcement of ready); Pate v. State, 592 S.W.2d 620 (Tex.Cr.App.1980) (lack of indictment reb......