Rhett v. State, s. 1025-92
| Decision Date | 21 October 1992 |
| Docket Number | 1026-92,Nos. 1025-92,s. 1025-92 |
| Parties | Cardell RHETT, Jr., Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee. |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
James H. Kreimeyer, Belton, for appellant.
Arthur C. Eads, Dist. Atty., and James T. Russell, Asst. Dist. Atty., Belton, Robert Huttash, State's Atty., Austin, for the State.
Before the Court en banc.
OPINION ON APPELLANT'S PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW
Appellant was convicted of burglary of a habitation and murder, with punishment being assessed by the jury at five years in the penitentiary for the burglary and ten years in the penitentiary plus a $10,000 fine for the murder. The convictions were affirmed. Rhett v. State, 832 S.W.2d 177 (Tex.App.-Austin 1992).
On direct appeal, Appellant raised two points of error regarding the admission of a confession. In his first point of error he argued that the trial court erred in admitting the statement into evidence because the officer taking the statement gave warnings which did not comply with Article 38.22, § 2, V.A.C.C.P. The Court of Appeals found that proper warnings were given. In his second point of error Appellant argued that the findings of fact and conclusions of law regarding the admission of the statement were insufficient because they were not signed by the judge who tried the case. 1
The record reflects the trial in this case was had in October of 1991. The transcript was due at the Court of Appeals on December 31, 1991, but an extension was granted until January 30, 1992. On January 29, 1992, findings of fact and conclusions of law were signed by the Hon. C.W. Duncan, a former presiding judge of the trial court who had not presided over the trial of the instant case. Later that same day, these findings were filed with the District Clerk and were included in the appellate transcript. The cover prepared by the District Clerk pursuant to Tex.R.App.Pro. Appendix 1(a)(3), reflects that the Clerk delivered the transcript to the Third Court of Appeals the same day the findings were filed. The transcript was filed of record with the Court of Appeals on February 4, 1992.
In response to Appellant's second point of error the State argued that Appellant had failed to preserve for appellate review the question of whether the findings must be signed by the judge before whom the case has been tried. Citing Tex.R.App.Pro. 52(a), the Court of Appeals agreed and did not address the merits of the point of error. In his...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Stiles v. State
...for appellate review, the appellant must make an objection at the time the error occurs. TEX.R.APP. P. 52(a); Rhett v. State, 839 S.W.2d 93, 94 (Tex.Crim.App.1992). This "contemporaneous objection" is necessary to provide the trial court with an opportunity to prevent any error from occurri......
-
Freeman v. Davis
...to prevent any error." Shelvin v. State, 884 S.W.2d 874, 876 (Tex. App. — Austin 1994, pet. ref'd) (citing Rhett v. State, 839 S.W.2d 93, 94 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992)). Under this rule, "a contemporaneous objection must be made and an adverse ruling obtained" before an issue may be considered ......
-
Ruiz v. Davis
...to prevent any error." Shelvin v. State, 884 S.W.2d 874, 876 (Tex. App. - Austin 1994, pet. ref'd) (citing Rhett v. State, 839 S.W.2d 93, 94 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992)). Under this rule, "a contemporaneous objection must be made and an adverse ruling obtained" before an issue may be considered ......
-
Shelvin v. State
...that the objection be presented to the trial court to provide that court with an opportunity to prevent any error. Rhett v. State, 839 S.W.2d 93, 94 (Tex.Crim.App.1992). Thus, as a general rule, reviewing courts will not consider errors, even those of constitutional magnitude, not called to......