*1 Grassedonio, strument provides 1) notice to those in as: of power such of whose chain title docu- unilaterally mistakes appellants to correct ment purchaser falls. Generally, a is bound v. by them. See made Simonds Stanolind to take grantor 332, 114 226, notice deed from the of Co., Tex. Gas Oil & grantor prior his to under his (1938); 2) knowledge actual of However, grantor claims. when takes one prevent which would appellee Grassedonio a conveyance from another who holds under purchaser; becoming bona fide her from the first grantor, pur- deed from his such 3) the if of the title negligence, any, and chaser should not be bound to look further examining pur the title for the company for a subsequent grantor. deed from that liability, and if any, Grassedonio its chaser McGregor, 556, White v. 92 Tex. 50 S.W. party. to what 564, (1899); Titles, 565-66 Lange, Land judge the able was We hold that trial 814, supra p. us, appears 248. as it to § injunction. issuing temporary correct may appeared court, have trial injunction until a full This should continue Grassedonio introduced sufficient evidence is merits the case in trial had on the at the preliminary hearing to have proved chief. that she was a purchaser bona fide for court is af- judgment trial and, such, value as tempo- entitled to the firmed. rary injunction.
Appellants assert that appellee Gras-
sedonio have did actual knowledge, and
such strips her of her position as a bona fide
purchaser. The question of actual knowl
edge fact, Reaves, is one Morris 891, 893 (Tex.Civ.App. — Houston writ), no and exist
[14th Dist.]
ence, non, vel of that question is for trier of facts. This convinces us further COLLINS, Douglas Appellant, preserve need to the status quo injunction temporary until that question Texas, Appellee. and others can be STATE of decided on the merits. Vial, Smith No. 13-81-264-CR. (Tex.Civ.App. writ). no — Dallas Texas, Court of A picture presented different con Christi. Corpus cerning appellee pur Rancho. Having prior chased Release, the Partial Dec. 1982. expressly subject lien, to the Reid it would Concurring Opinion Jan. 1983. be for difficult Rancho claim to bona fide purchaser. Initially, ap it would
pear that tempo Rancho is not entitled to a
rary injunction. However, the unprotected
status of appellee Rancho does not rise
to a on right part of appellants to a
nonjudicial foreclosure the property. on power part
Such trustee vests
solely by the authority granted in the deed trust, upon and terminates the release of Emerich, lien. Ford
531 (Tex.Civ.App. 1961, writ ref’d — Houston n.r.e.). questions There are arise
on the merits to Rancho and
720 reaching
deliberated for 45 minutes before agreement punishment. on Rockemore jurors that all the discussed how stated his sentence the appellant much of as, serve calculations such “If by making parole 14 he can out in give years, we him five.” error, ground appellant
In his first
the
parole
the
law
contends
discussion of
by
deprived
the
was misconduct which
him of a fair trial. Tex.Code Crim.Proc.
(Vernon 1979) provides,
Ann. Art. 40.03
trials,
felony,
“New
in cases of
shall
following
the
granted the defendant
for
Where, from the misconduct
causes:
....
jury,
opinion
lof the
the court is of the
a fair and
-the defendant has not received
”
impartial
trial..
. .
the
discussion of
Jury
State,
580
always
misconduct. Sanders
Wheth
(Tex.Cr.App.1979).
S.W.2d
351
reversal de
er this misconduct mandates
Houston,
Donald Dewberry,
appel-
for
facts of each
pends upon
the
lant.
State,
853
case. Heredia v.
(Tex.Cr.App.1975).
Vasquez
We listed
Holmes, Jr.,
Houston,
John B.
Dist. Atty.,
State,
(Tex.App
183
appellee.
for
. —Cor
petition)
no
the criteria
pus Christi
NYE, C.J.,
Before
and
YOUNG
determining
consider in
which
court
GONZALEZ, JJ.
has
whether
when misconduct
to reverse
the
factors which have
occurred. Those
OPINION
the dura
bearing
most
on this case include:
discussion; whether
tion and extent of the
YOUNG, Justice.
such
the court caused
admonishments
A
County jury
Douglas
Harris
found
Col-
cease;
proximity
and the
discussion
lins
with
guilty
burglary
building
the discussion to the final vote.
intent
to commit
theft and assessed his
us,
punishment at
In the case before
it is clear
imprisonment
for fourteen
the effect
extensively about
years.
appellant
The
calls to our attention
the
talked
It is also
on the sentence.
punish-
several errors which occurred
laws
jurors disregarded
phase
apparent
ment
of the trial. We reverse.
charge
pro
in the
court’s instruction
trial, appellant
In his motion for new
long
of how
consideration
hibited
alleged
that the
discussed the num-
Finally,
ap
would serve.
appellant
ber of
serve in
years
actually
Collins would
permeated
their statements
pears that
jail.
supported by
This motion was
until
not cease
deliberations and did
Rockemore,
juror,
affidavit of Charlie
mis
that the
final vote. We conclude
greater part
who stated that
for the
a fair trial.
the appellant
conduct denied
jurors spoke
their deliberation the
(Tex.
State,
Munroe
length of
sentence
relation to
Cr.app.1982).
actual time
At the
hearing
served.
is re-
trial,
the trial court
judgment
motion for new
Rockemore was
cause is remanded.
sole witness. He
versed and the
testified
NYE,
Justice,
explains
if it
concurring.
Chief
instruction
State,
Andrews v.
operation
parole.
opinion
I
in the
concur
of this Court
(Ark.1971);
Ark.
because the rule is
well
now
established
Brooks,
(S.C.
It is completely present unrealistic to think Texas has no of method jurors Texas do not consider parole allowing appellate when the trial court or the assessing punishment. punishment From our courts to reduce an excessive experi- ence, appears many jurors by jury. are aware assessed If such a method that a paroled defendant can be after were implemented by Legislature, satis- factorily serving a portion present policy of the sentence could retain its of al- assessed; and, while jurors lowing jurors testify other are less about matters oc- familiar with the operation parole, they curring jury endanger- in the room without at vague ing least have some of an con- knowledge validity otherwise valid early release is possible suggestion, under various cir- viction. Under the latter once cumstances. It is showing jury unrealistic that reversible a had been made that error occurs only by discussing inappropriate Texas when this com- violated its duty mon knowledge (i.e., etc.), manifests itself in an open parole, responsibility matters expression or parole possi- setting appropriate punishment an bilities, for appellate the same harm befalls an ac- shift to the trial court or to the juror cused when sus- ground votes for an increased court when the of error was punishment pa- appeal. prevent because he knows all about tained on This would although parole actually guilt role entire retrial of defendants whose has has not been discussed been and were harmed by jury. other members of the established punishment phase of a trial. It is point worthwhile to out several fac- tors which directly indirectly Third, either or con- a wide Texas law offers the tribute If more defi- regarding parole. range punishment options. discussions First, states, in Texas as in several other even fixed terms punishment options nite or utilized, has a assessing punish- vital role in for certain crimes were This, too, ment. be a dates parole eligibility mistake and desire to calculate should repealed. If the had no present would be reduced. function, within punishment punishment allows the to assess assessing topic range years impact a wide increases the might have on the amount of spend
time that a defendant would have to cities, prison. past, In the in some Texas jurors’ knowledge parole system of the
has been demonstrated sentences of 1,000 years.
500 or even nearly impossible to ask feelings punishment
discuss their and to punishment
assess while at the same time
asking ignore impact them to the real
their decision. In order to reduce the num- alleging
ber of cases error from this form misconduct, adopt we must either
majority rule prohibit impeachment situation, modify
of verdicts in this some procedures
of our trial to reduce the likeli- any
hood that these errors will occur. In
event, Legislature should make a seri- study injustices
ous occur- that are
ring daily in our legislation state and enact guarantees fair trial to the accused people
and to the of Texas that the State
represents.
HOWELL PETROLEUM CORPORA- (J.M. Corporation,
TION Huber et
al), Appellant, KRAMER,
Kathleen Jane Bohannon
Appellee.
No. 13-82-260-CV. Texas,
Court of
Corpus Christi.
Jan. 1983.