Roberts v. State, 61798
| Decision Date | 10 October 1979 |
| Docket Number | No. 2,No. 61798,61798,2 |
| Parties | Leonard W. ROBERTS, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Allan R. Manka, San Antonio, on appeal only, for appellant.
Bill M. White, Dist. Atty., Lawrence J. Souza, Ron Mata and Monica L. Donahue, Asst. Dist. Attys., San Antonio, Robert Huttash, State's Atty., Austin, for the State.
Before DOUGLAS, PHILLIPS and CLINTON, JJ.
On his guilty plea before the trial court appellant was found guilty, punishment was assessed, application for probation was Denied 1 and sentence imposed. To an otherwise unexceptional procedure, appellant makes but two complaints. One is utterly without merit; the other evokes agreement from the State that corrective action is appropriate. Neither, however, requires a recitation of facts relating to the offense.
Appellant filed and presented a motion to suppress evidence, claiming an illegal arrest and search of his person while in a residence that was raided by peace officers pursuant to a search warrant. At hearing on the motion, through a witness called by the State, an affidavit for and the search warrant were admitted in evidence without objection. When testimony from that witness was completed, appellant not only informed the trial court that he had no witnesses but also stated he did not believe there was anything wrong with the warrant. As already indicated, there was a guilty plea; it was taken during an exemplary admonishment by the trial court and is supported by a judicial confession of appellant and stipulated testimony, including contents of an offense report that detail his presence and activities as the search warrant was being executed. The trial court honored a plea bargain. The controlled substance, heroin, that was seized was Not introduced into evidence. Under these circumstances a ground of error complaining that the trial court erred in overruling the motion to suppress is untenable. Mitchell v. State, 586 S.W.2d 491 (Tex.Cr.App.1979); Ferguson v. State, 571 S.W.2d 908 (Tex.Cr.App.1978); Stiggers v. State, 506 S.W.2d 609 (Tex.Cr.App.1974); cf. Isam and Medley v. State, 582 S.W.2d 441 (Tex.Cr.App.1979).
In sentencing appellant the trial court stated the term assessed would begin and operate from August 24, 1978, the date apparently appellant was returned to Bexar County from TDC under the bench warrant. The written sentence, however, reflects the date of November 17, 1978, that being the day on which it was imposed. With his complaint that the trial court erred in approving the latter contrary to express provisions of Article 42.03, V.A.C.C.P., 2 the State concurs and also graciously points out that the sentence fails to reflect the further pronouncement of the trial court that the term of confinement in this instant cause is to "run concurrent with the sentence he is serving now." However, the written sentence need...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Morgan v. State
...evidence independent of that contested by the motion. See also Salazer v. State, 582 S.W.2d 469 (Tex.Cr.App.1979); Roberts v. State, 587 S.W.2d 724 (Tex.Cr.App.1979); Brewster v. State, 606 S.W.2d 325, 327-328 In Haney v. State, 588 S.W.2d 913 (Tex.Cr.App.1979), it was held that even if the......
-
Galitz v. State
...guilty is supported by evidence "independent of the matter contested in the pretrial motion." See also Brewster, supra; Roberts v. State, 587 S.W.2d 724 (Tex.Cr.App.1979); Mitchell, supra. The latter rationale involved in Ferguson, supra, was more fully explicated in Haney v. State, 588 S.W......
-
Jack v. State
...trial court erred in hearing certain evidence pursuant to application for, and then in failing to grant, probation); Roberts v. State, 587 S.W.2d 724 (Tex.Cr.App.1979) (State concedes error in failure of trial court to credit defendant with back jail time credit even though defendant pled g......
-
Martinez v. State
...fifth issue is sustained, and we reform the judgment to reflect that Martinez is entitled to credit for 482 days served. See Roberts v. State, 587 S.W.2d 724, 726 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1979) (reforming trial court's judgment to reflect proper credit for time served).CONCLUSION The tr......