Rangel v. State
| Decision Date | 23 November 1966 |
| Docket Number | No. 39874,39874 |
| Citation | 408 S.W.2d 231 |
| Parties | Jose Joel RANGEL, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee. |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
No appearance for appellant.
Leon B. Douglas, State's Atty., Austin, for the State.
The offense is burglary; the punishment, 3 years.
Trial was before the court on January 12, 1966, on a plea of not guilty, a jury being waived as provided in Art. 1.15 C.C.P., 1965.
No motion for new trial having been filed, sentence was pronounced on March 23, 1966, and appellant excepted and gave notice of appeal.
The record on appeal was prematurely forwarded to this Court without having been approved by the trial judge and, upon request, was returned to the trial court.
The record, having been supplemented and approved, was returned to this Court and the case was submitted on appellant's motion to dismiss the appeal.
The supplemental record includes an affidavit of appellant filed in the trial court praying that he be allowed to withdraw his notice of appeal and accept the sentence; and the order of the trial judge granting said motion.
The trial court correctly found in such order that it retained jurisdiction of said cause and had authority to grant the motion and dismiss the appeal by virtue of Arts. 40.09 and 44.11 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Art. 44.11 provides in part:
'Upon the appellate record being filed in the Court of Criminal Appeals, all further proceedings in the trial court, except as to bond as provided in Article 44.04 and the proceedings in Article 40.09, shall be suspended and arrested until the judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeals is received by the trial court, * * *.'
Art. 40.09, Section 9 et seq., provide a procedure in the trial court after the approval of the appellate record. Sections 9, 10 and 11 provide for the filing of briefs and oral arguments. Section 12 reads:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ex parte Giles
...court, and the trial court still retains jurisdiction of the cause. See Articles 40.09, 44.11, Vernon's Ann.C.C.P.; Rangel v. State, 408 S.W.2d 231 (Tex.Cr.App.1966); Brill v. State, 408 S.W.2d 232 (Tex.Cr.App.1966); Tucker v. State, 416 S.W.2d 437 (Tex.Cr.App.1967). Cf. Phillips v. State, ......
-
Farris v. State, 1016-84
...appeal, e.g., Tucker v. State, 416 S.W.2d 437 (Tex.Cr.App.1967); Brill v. State, 408 S.W.2d 232 (Tex.Cr.App.1966); Rangel v. State, 408 S.W.2d 231 (Tex.Cr.App.1966), to enter a nunc pro tunc order correcting judgment and sentence to truly reflect the offense for which defendant was convicte......
-
High v. State
...contempt under Article 1911a, V.A.C.S. "The court still has control over the case until the record reaches this Court. Rangel v. State, 408 S.W.2d 231 (Tex.Cr.App.1966). Even though a late brief is filed, he can grant a new trial. If the court refused to grant a new trial after a late brief......
-
Phillips v. State, 41317
...or a situation where the trial judge had acted in accordance with the provisions of Section 15 of Article 40.09, supra. In Rangel v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 408 S.W.2d 231, where the record was prematurely filed in this Court, we held, in construing Articles 40.09 and 44.11, supra, that under t......