Peters v. State, 57351
Court | Court of Appeals of Texas. Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas |
Citation | 575 S.W.2d 560 |
Docket Number | No. 57351,No. 1,57351,1 |
Parties | Daniel R. PETERS, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee |
Decision Date | 10 January 1979 |
Jim Hamilton, Houston, for appellant.
James F. Hury, Jr., Dist. Atty., and Michael P. Heiskell, Asst. Dist. Atty., Galveston, for the State.
Before ONION, P. J., and PHILLIPS and TOM G. DAVIS, JJ.
Appeal is taken from a conviction for arson. Punishment, enhanced by two prior felony convictions, was set at life.
At the outset, appellant contends that the court erred in failing to strike for cause a prospective juror who "stated he felt he could not be fair."
The record reflects that during the voir dire examination of prospective juror Donald W. Rogers, the prosecutor asked, "Do you know of any reason why you couldn't be a fair and impartial juror in this case?" and Rogers responded, "I sure do." The prospective juror and counsel approached the bench, where the following transpired "outside the hearing of the jury panel":
The testimony of Rogers on voir dire, when taken as a whole, does not reflect that he was disqualified from serving on the jury. Freeman v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 556 S.W.2d 287; Adami v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 524 S.W.2d 693.
Further, the record does not reflect that the appellant requested an additional challenge after he exhausted all of his peremptory challenges, or that the court would not have given an additional challenge if such request had been made. There is no showing that appellant was forced to take an objectionable juror. No error is shown. See Adami v. State, supra; Williams v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 481 S.W.2d 119.
Appellant contends that the court erred in putting him to trial "on the sanity issue without allowing ten (10) days for preparation."
The record reflects that counsel was appointed to represent appellant, an indigent, on March 3, 1977.
On March 7, 1977, a hearing began on the competency of appellant to stand trial and on the following day the jury found that appellant was competent to stand trial.
On March 17, 1977, trial began on the merits and concluded at 6:35 p. m. March 18, 1977.
Article 26.04(b), V.A.C.C.P., provides:
"The appointed counsel is entitled to ten days to prepare for trial, but may waive the time by written notice, signed by the counsel and the accused."
In the instant case, no written waiver of the ten days to prepare for trial was executed by appellant and his counsel. Absent such a waiver, this Court has held that the failure to allow appointed counsel ten days to prepare for trial requires reversal on direct appeal without the necessity of showing harm or prejudice. Griffin v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 489 S.W.2d 290; Pollinzi v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 541 S.W.2d 445; Houston v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 490 S.W.2d 851; Hayles v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 507 S.W.2d 213; McBride v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 519 S.W.2d 433.
The question here presented is whether a hearing on the issue of competency to stand trial held less than ten days after the appointment of counsel comes within the mandatory requirement of Art. 26.04(b), supra.
Article 46.02, Sec. 2(a), V.A.C.C.P., provides:
"The issue of the defendant's incompetency to stand trial shall be determined in advance of the trial on the merits if the court determines there is evidence to support a finding of incompetency to stand trial on its own motion or on written motion by the defendant or his counsel filed prior to the date set for trial on the merits asserting that the defendant is incompetent to stand trial."
The judgment finding appellant competent to stand trial recites that a motion to try the issue of incompetency "was presented on behalf of the accused," a jury was selected, and the jury returned a verdict finding appellant competent to stand trial on March 8, 1977.
This Court has stated that the purpose of Art. 26.04, supra, is to protect an accused's right to have adequate time to prepare for trial. Moore v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 493 S.W.2d 844.
Article 46.02, Sec. 2(a), provides for a hearing in advance of trial to determine the sole issue of whether an accused is competent to stand trial. Said hearing is not a "trial" as that term is used in Art. 26.04(b), supra. We hold that a hearing on the question of an accused's competency to stand trial held within ten days after appointment of counsel does not require reversal under Art. 26.04(b), supra.
Lastly, appellant contends that the court erred in assessing life punishment "because there was no proof that the date of the 1969 offense was subsequent to the 1963 conviction."
The enhancement paragraphs of the indictment allege a conviction for breaking and entering a motor vehicle on the 14th day of May, 1969, in the 177th District Court of Harris County in Cause No. 136900, and a conviction for burglary on the 8th day of May, 1963, in the 174th Criminal District Court of Harris County in Cause No. 104900.
V.T.C.A. Penal Code, Sec. 12.42(d), provides:
"If it be shown on the trial of any felony offense that the defendant has previously been finally convicted of two felony offenses, And the second...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Callins v. State, 69023
...appellant's request for additional peremptory challenges or would have done so had they been requested by appellant. Peters v. State, 575 S.W.2d 560 (Tex.Cr.App.1979). The record revealed that having exhausted his peremptory strikes appellant requested and was granted one additional perempt......
-
Beck v. State, 1091-85
...packet, the necessary proof may come from the introduction of the pen packet and the testimony of the defendant. See Peters v. State, 575 S.W.2d 560 (Tex.Cr.App.1979); Wright v. State, 511 S.W.2d 313 (Tex.Cr.App.1974); Davison v. State, 510 S.W.2d 316, 319 (Tex.Cr.App.1974). Even if a defen......
-
Cantrell v. State, 60975
...request had been made, and that nothing is presented for review. Adami v. State, 524 S.W.2d 693, 700 (Tex.Cr.App.1975); Peters v. State, 575 S.W.2d 560 (Tex.Cr.App.1979). The State is right. Appellant's points of error are Next, appellant urges that the trial court erred in refusing under G......
-
Moreno v. State, 626-82
...Bennett, and that compliance with all parts of the statute was "mandatory" thus became firmly established. 3 See Peters v. State, 575 S.W.2d 560 (Tex.Cr.App.1979), wherein Judge Tom Davis collected for a panel of the Court a host of decisions standing for the proposition that without a waiv......