Sawyer v. State
| Decision Date | 31 March 1983 |
| Docket Number | B14-82-221-CR,Nos. B14-82-218C,s. B14-82-218C |
| Parties | Eugene Franklin SAWYER, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee. (14th Dist.) |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Clement Aldridge, Jr., J. Patrick Wiseman, Houston, for appellant.
Timothy Taft, Houston, for appellee.
Before MURPHY, ROBERTSON and CANNON, JJ.
The appellant was charged by separate indictments with two counts of indecency with a child, both of which were enhanced by a prior conviction for indecency with a child. The appellant entered pleas of guilty after the State abandoned the enhancement paragraphs. The court found appellant guilty and, after a pre-sentence investigation, assessed punishment at eight years confinement in the Texas Department of Corrections. To this sentence appellant excepted and gave notice of appeal. Both appeals raise four identical grounds of error; we have, therefore, consolidated these appeals for disposition by this court. We find no error by the trial court in either case and affirm.
In his first three grounds of error, the appellant argues that the record does not adequately support a plea of guilty as it does not contain the appellant's signed, written agreements to: (1) waive his right to a jury trial; (2) stipulate evidence; and (3) waive the appearance, confrontation and cross-examination of witnesses, as required by the Tex.Code Crim.Pro.Ann. arts. 1.13 and 1.15 (Vernon 1977). The plea of guilty forms which contain the signed, written waivers in question are not in the records that were initially filed in this court. However, subsequent to the filing of the appellate briefs, we received the State's Motion To Supplement Record which we granted on November 4, 1982. The appellant filed Defendant's Motion to Reconsider Order Granting State's Motion To Supplement Record, which this Court overruled on November 18, 1982. Upon receiving the Supplemental Record, we found that such documents were, in fact, executed in the cases. Therefore, appellant's first three grounds of error leave nothing for us to review because the issues raised are now moot.
In his fourth ground of error, the appellant complains that the indictment charges only the offense of indecent exposure, Tex.Penal Code Ann. § 21.08 (Vernon 1974), because it fails to allege that the appellant exposed his genitals knowing that the complainant was a child as required by Tex.Penal Code Ann. § 21.11 (Vernon Supp. 1982-1983). The two statutes in question read as follows:
§ 21.08. INDECENT EXPOSURE
(a) A person commits an offense if he exposes his anus or any part of his genitals with intent to arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person, and he is reckless about whether another is present who will be offended or alarmed by his act.
(b) An offense under this section is a Class C misdemeanor. (Emphasis added.)
(a) A person commits an offense if, with a child younger than 17 years and not his spouse, whether the child is of the same or opposite sex, he:
(1) engages in sexual contact with the child; or
(2) exposes his anus or any part of his genitals, knowing the child is present, with intent to arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person.
(b) It is a defense to prosecution under this section that the child was at the time of the alleged offense 14 years or older and had, prior to the time of the alleged offense, engaged promiscuously in:
(1) sexual intercourse;
(2) deviate sexual intercourse;
(3) sexual contact; or
(4) indecent exposure as defined in Subsection (a)(2) of this section.
(c) It is an affirmative defense to prosecution under this section that the actor was not more than two years older than the victim and of the opposite sex.
(d) An offense under Subsection (a)(1) of this section is a felony of the second degree and an offense under Subsection (a)(2) of this section is a felony of the third degree. (Emphasis added.)
Appellant contends that the factor that elevates the Class C misdemeanor of indecent exposure to the third degree felony of indecency with a child is the defendant's knowledge of the age of the victim. The apparent distinction...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Rodriguez-Rodriguez
...regarding the presence of any person, whereas indecency with a child requires knowledge of the presence of a child. Sawyer v. Texas, 655 S.W.2d 226, 228 (1983). The definition of an aggravated felony was revised to include "sexual abuse of a minor" by section 321(a)(1) of the Illegal Immigr......
-
Anderson v. State
...State, 7 S.W.3d 294, 297 (Tex.App.–Austin 1999, pet. ref'd) (“The obvious intent of indecency laws is to protect children.”); Sawyer v. State, 655 S.W.2d 226, 228 (Tex.App.–Houston [14th Dist.] 1983, no pet.) (“The severity of the penalty [for indecency with a child] is obviously a result o......
-
Prater v. State, No. 07-06-0373-CR (Tex. App. 3/27/2007)
...originally imposed on him. Both appear in a supplemental clerk's record, however. Consequently, the issues are moot. See Sawyer v. State, 655 S.W.2d 226, 227 (Tex. App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1983, no pet.) (holding that complaints about documents missing from the record are rendered moot whe......
-
Craver v. State, 05-16-00450-CR
...Therefore, appellant's two grounds of error leave nothing for us to review because the issues raised are now moot. See Sawyer v. State, 655 S.W.2d 226, 227 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1983, no pet.). We dismiss the appeal. /David W. Evans/ DAVID EVANS JUSTICEDo Not PublishTEX. R. APP. P......