Ransonnette v. State
| Decision Date | 30 April 1975 |
| Docket Number | No. 49808,49808 |
| Parties | Woodrow RANSONNETTE, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee. |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Dennis L. White, Edith L. James, Dallas, of counsel, for appellant.
Henry Wade, Dist. Atty. and W. T. Westmoreland, Jr., Douglas D. Julder and Jim Burnham, Asst. Dist. Attys., Dallas, Jim D. Vollers, State's Atty. and David S. McAngus, Asst. State's Atty., Austin, for the State.
The offense is kidnapping for extortion under Article 1177a, Vernon's Ann.P.C.; 1 the punishment, 5005 years.
Appellant and his brother were indicted and jointly tried for the kidnapping. This appeal relates only to appellant's conviction.
Appellant's first ground of error is the failure of the trial court to grant his motions for severance. His first motion alleged that appellant had no prior conviction, while his brother had several. The second motion alleged that appellant had one prior conviction that resulted in a probated sentence, 'which had been lived out.'
Article 42.12, Sec. 7, Vernon's Ann.C.C.P. provides that upon satisfactory completion of the probation period a court may set aside the verdict, dismiss the charges and release the probationer from all disabilities relating to conviction. However, no evidence was offered in support of the motions at the time they were presented. 2 Absent a showing that the prior conviction had been set aside or that it was otherwise inadmissible, appellant was not entitled to a severance as a matter of right pursuant to Article 36.09, V.A.C.C.P., and no error was committed by the trial court. Nelson v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 503 S.W.2d 543; Robinson v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 449 S.W.2d 239; Thornton v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 451 S.W.2d 898.
Further, since neither appellant nor his co-defendant testified before the jury at the guilt phase or the punishment phase and no mention is made at the trial on the merits of the prior record of either co-defendant, no apparent harm to appellant resulted from the joint trial. Sonderup v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 418 S.W.2d 807.
By ground of error two appellant contends that the court erred in declining his motion for change of venue. 3 In support of this motion, appellant called two criminal defense attorneys, a news coordinator for a TV station, a staff writer for a local newspaper, a former assistant district attorney, an employee of a local TV news department, a director of photography of a local TV news program, and a reporter for a local newspaper. These witnesses expressed the opinion that appellant could not obtain a fair trial in Dallas County because of the incident publicity. In addition, he introduced nine written exhibits. The first is a front page account of the fact that a $250,000 ransom was paid and that a kidnapped socialite had been freed. The second exhibit told of the arrest of appellant and his brother, and gave a brief description of them, but painted them in as favorable a light as possible under the circumstances. It quoted a neighbor as saying that one of the brothers 'took care of his children and played with them' and 'in my opinion, he was a pretty good guy'. The third was a front page story from another local newspaper with a banner reading . Appellant was identified in the following language: This was accompanied by one column pictures of the appellant appearing at the bottom of the page. The fourth was a news story showing appellant conferring with his attorneys and stating that he was remanded to jail in lieu of $100,000 bond, and gave some details of the payoff. The fifth was a short news article comparing the present case with another of the same nature. The sixth was a front page news story concerning the other case wherein the appellant was not mentioned. The seventh was a news story concerning the motions to change venue in a case against a former policeman and this appellant. There was no connection between the cases. The eighth was a short inside story relating to the motion to reduce the appellant's bond. The ninth was an inside story dated approximately a month in advance of the trial relating to the bond hearing which contained this paragraph:
'Attorney White repeatedly established Monday that the brothers cooperated with officers, did not resist arrest and showed no violence of injurious nature in attempt to have their bond lowered.'
The State in rebuttal called a news...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ex parte Renier
...dismiss the accusation, and only then will the disabilities and penalties of law be lifted from the accused. See, Ransonnette v. State, 522 S.W.2d 509, 510-11 (Tex.Cr.App.1975).27 The meaning of this proviso is hard to fathom. Presumably, it means to permit a verdict which has been set asid......
-
Faulder v. State
...with a fairly evenly divided choice" and therefore the court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion. Ransonnette v. State, 522 S.W.2d 509, 512 (Tex.Cr.App.1975), and cases cited Barefoot v. State, 596 S.W.2d 875, 880-881 (Tex.Cr.App.1980) (also "instructive" to examine voir dire......
-
McManus v. State
...supra; Von Byrd v. State, 569 S.W.2d 883 (Tex.Cr.App.1978); Freeman v. State, 556 S.W.2d 287 (Tex.Cr.App.1977); Ransonnette v. State, 522 S.W.2d 509 (Tex.Cr.App.1975). We hold that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in overruling appellant's After overruling appellant's motion, th......
-
Freeman v. State
...contentions of appellant when the trial court, the trier of the facts, overruled the motion for a change of venue. See Ransonnette v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 522 S.W.2d 509; Chappell v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 519 S.W.2d 453. However, the issue was again raised when the case was called for trial on......