Thom v. State, 57325
| Citation | 563 S.W.2d 618 |
| Decision Date | 29 March 1978 |
| Docket Number | No. 2,No. 57325,57325,2 |
| Parties | Charles Merle THOM, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee |
| Court | Court of Appeals of Texas. Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas |
Jack Hampton, Dallas, for appellant.
Felipe Reyna, Dist. Atty., and Lynn W. Malone, Asst. Dist. Atty., Waco, for the State.
Before ONION, P. J., and DOUGLAS and ODOM, JJ.
The conviction in this case, upon a plea of guilty, was for unlawful possession of marihuana. Punishment was assessed at five years and a.$1000.00 fine.
The sole ground of error states:
"The trial court committed reversible error by denying the defendant the right to call witnesses in his own behalf at the hearing on sentencing."
The record shows that on January 27, 1977, the plea of guilty was accepted by the trial court. After finding the appellant guilty, the court assessed the punishment and then reset the sentencing to a later date pending a probation report. After calling the case on two prior dates, the court finally called it on June 27, 1977, and sentenced the appellant.
The argument is that appellant should have been allowed to call witnesses on June 27, 1977.
First, there is no bifurcated trial at a plea of guilty trial. Second, even so, no offer of proof is shown as to what any witnesses would have testified to.
No error is shown. The judgment is affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ricondo v. State
...also Johnson v. State, 492 S.W.2d 505 (Tex.Cr.App.1973); Morales v. State, 416 S.W.2d 403 (Tex.Cr.App.1967). See also Thom v. State, 563 S.W.2d 618 (Tex.Cr.App.1978). See and cf. Nunez v. State, 565 S.W.2d 536 The bifurcated trial procedure in Texas was an innovation of the 1965 Code of Cri......
-
Ramirez v. State
...hearing. For the proposition that his plea was involuntary as a result of these changed circumstances, appellant relies on Thom v. State, 563 S.W.2d 618 (Tex.Crim.App. [Panel Op.] 1978), and Escobedo v. State, 643 S.W.2d 243 (Tex. App.-Austin 1982, no Thom provides no support for appellant'......
-
Mason v. State, s. 60777
...the questions presented, it is appropriate that the decisions producing that division of thought be identified. In Thom v. State, 563 S.W.2d 618 (Tex.Cr.App.1978), writing for a unanimous panel, Judge Odom, as is his wont, stated succinctly that "there is no bifurcated trial at a plea of gu......
-
Carroll v. State
...held upon entering a plea of guilty in a non-capital felony case, a defendant is not entitled to a bifurcated trial. Thom v. State, 563 S.W.2d 618, 619 (Tex.Cr.App.1978). In fact, once the guilty plea is entered, the procedure becomes a "unitary trial" to determine the remaining issue of pu......