OPINION
Thе offense is robbery by assault; the punishment, 99 years confinement in the Texas Department of Corrections.
Appellant entered a plea of guilty before a jury and the trial was conducted under the provisions of Article 26.14, Vernon’s Ann.C.C.P. No motion for probation was filed.
The evidence reflects that Ernest Phelps, Jr., manager оf the Seven-Eleven Ice House in Grand Prairie, Texas, was robbed at gunpoint of $136.00 by the appellant on November 28, 1965, at approximately 9:30 p. m. On December 4, 1965, appellant was apprehended while in the process of an armed rоbbery at Wyatt’s Food Store in Waxahachie, Texas. His written confession of the rоbbery alleged in the indictment of the Seven-Eleven Ice House in Dallas County, Texаs was admitted without objection.
While not-challenging the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the conviction, appellant, in his first ground of error, contends the trial court erred in refusing to allow him and his wife to testify on direct examination as to his motive in committing the offense charged, his financial and social background, his expression of remorse and contrition.
We do not find that appellant’s wife was intеrrogated concerning his motive. She did relate that she had been married to аppellant for four years and had two sons, ages 3 and fifteen months. The court sustаined the objection to the question that she “tell the jury something about the financial status” of her family. Nevertheless, she subsequently testified that because of her financial condition the two children were living with her mother-in-law. When the court sustained anоther objection to “this line of testimony” the witness was passed for cross-examinаtion and no exception was taken to the court’s action.
Testifying in his own behаlf, appellant related he was 27 years old and had an eighth grade education. He listed some of his previous places of employment, including his job with the Grаnd Prairie Water Department at the time of the robbery in question. He was not permitted to testify as to his motive in committing the robbery, but did relate that he had made a written confession because he did not “want to live a lie” and wanted to get “forgivеness from God.”
It is „ well established that a plea of guilty to a felony charge befоre a jury admits the existence of all facts necessary to establish guilt and, in such cases, the introduction of testimony by the State is to enable the jury to intelligently exеrcise the discretion which the law vests in them touching the penalty to be assessеd. Miller v. State, Tex.Cr.App.,
Where the guilty plea is before the jury, the presumption of innocence does not obtain under the plea and there is no issue of justification under it. Stulli-
*496
van v. State,
While a jury is entitled to informatiоn which will fairly tend to enlighten them in their discretion in imposing punishment, testimony by an accused is subject to the general rules as to necessary relevancy. See 22A C.J.S. Criminal Law § 600, p. 394. It may or should be excluded when it has no bearing on the matters in issue. Gomez v. State,
The answer sought to be elicited by the question relating to motive is not in the record before us and cannot be properly appraised. If the answer sought had been self-serving, it would Have been properly excluded. Johnson v. State,
Further, we find no error in the trial court’s exclusion of the amount of appеllant’s wages at the time of his arrest. See Clay v. State,
We reject appеllant’s ground of error #2 that the punishment assessed is excessive in view of the evidenсe, particularly in light of his cooperation and extrajudicial confession. If the punishment is within that prescribed by the statute, it is beyond the province of this Court to pass upon the question of excessive punishment. Lewallen v. State,
The judgment is affirmed.