History
  • No items yet
midpage
Ex Parte Keener
314 S.W.2d 93
Tex. Crim. App.
1958
Check Treatment

*1 REHEARING MOTION POR ON Presiding Judge. MORRISON,

Appellant complains not discuss his con- we did by paragraph reflected that fundamental error was tention charge. long court’s It has been the rule of the court’s charge charge Paragraph 6 of will considered as whole. fully man- presumption in a question favorable covers the standpoint. aрpellant’s ner from the disposed Remaining properly cause convinced that we rehearing originally, appellant’s overruled. motion for Harley Parte Keener. Ex Walter 4, Longview, Gaston, petitioner. P.L. for Orvis, Henry Attorney, Wadе, J. Criminal District Attorney, Broyles, Botvie, E. A. D. Carl Jim Assistants District Austin, Dallas, Douglas, Attorney, for the statе. Leon and State’s MORRISON, Presiding Judge. corpus proceeding relator attacks

This wherein is confined sentence under which he void ‍​​​​‌​​‌‌​​‌‌​‌‌‌‌​‌​​‌​​‌‌‌​‌‌​‌​​‌​​‌‌​‌‌‌​‌​​‍and penitentiary. in the 2 of District Court No.

The conviction was Criminal court, Though County. appealed to this thе record Dallas is before us. offered in the trial court the evidence Stаte, halfway Texas lies between Crawford This case Ex parte 164 Texas Rep. and 278 S.W. Cr. application involves an Rep. and 299 S.W. Texas, and Article I, Constitution Artiсle Section Shepherd V.A.C.C.P. See also Bruinsma, and Ex *2 838. S.W. plea guilty court. His

The relator entered his thе of before presence witnesses, stipu- counsel and it was waived the оf the they testify present lated that if such would to a witnesses were which, true, cеrtain state of facts if would have sufficient to been support ‍​​​​‌​​‌‌​​‌‌​‌‌‌‌​‌​​‌​​‌‌‌​‌‌​‌​​‌​​‌‌​‌‌‌​‌​​‍guilty. personally plea join the in of Relator did not sworn, stipulation this tively was testified and answеred affirma- testimony questioned when if he had heard “this as was stipulated substantially here” and that it was true and correct. Harper

In S.W. judicial support this court held a that confession was sufficient to penalty a death conviction еven if the written dis- confession be regarded. stipulation, plus testimony Here we a have the of the stipulated accused that the matters true and were correct. This support plea guilty. we deem sufficient to the of corpus Thе writ of habeas denied.

DAVIDSON, Judge, concurring. only

I disposition concur is, of this case—that that the ‍​​​​‌​​‌‌​​‌‌​‌‌‌‌​‌​​‌​​‌‌‌​‌‌​‌​​‌​​‌‌​‌‌‌​‌​​‍writ of сorpus be denied. jurisdiction, always

This court is insisted, without I have to a final upon bеcause of errors trial of the a appeal case where no was taken and the errors would render judgment voidable, the only. My my views áre in stated dissеnt- ing opinion parte Bush, 29,806, (page in Ex volume). 313 2d 287. S.W.

Ths authority court has no entertain tо the writ of habeas corpus ‍​​​​‌​​‌‌​​‌‌​‌‌‌‌​‌​​‌​​‌‌‌​‌‌​‌​​‌​​‌‌​‌‌‌​‌​​‍and upon the review which the conviction predicated. holding

The erroneous to which I here call attention is that рlea guilty of judicial constitutes a confession. is not true Such destroys and to so hold C.C.P., Art. requires Vernon’s which proof guilt upon plea guilty of before court. the plea guilty judicial If a confession, was a then no reason necessity оr “showing would arise for the introduction of evidence guilt defendant,” of the requires. the statute witness take the if the accused could would also be true Such supply the evidence

stand and admit his and thus of the defendant.” legislature part in рurpose and intent on the The C.C.P., prevent the state passage Vernon’s wаiver convicting plea guilty and upon his any independent guilt, by jury, proving his ‍​​​​‌​​‌‌​​‌‌​‌‌‌‌​‌​​‌​​‌‌‌​‌‌​‌​​‌​​‌‌​‌‌‌​‌​​‍of trial without State, 140 Texas testimony by plea Franklin the accused. or 2d 581. S.W. keeping positiоn is not in may appear I here take It that the dissenting opinion my in Ex expressеd by in with me however, Such, Rep *3 evi- was no my position case that there true. It in thаt required showing dence introduced proba- hearsay had no 12, V.A.C.C.P., by evidence void as value, of conviction and therefore the tive distinguished voidable, оnly. introduced, such was

In the instant case evidence was requiring comply with the statute not sufficient thereby defendant” and introduced be subject voidable, rendering only, and the convicton upon appeal reason. for that Joseph Paul Ouellette State

Case Details

Case Name: Ex Parte Keener
Court Name: Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas
Date Published: Jun 4, 1958
Citation: 314 S.W.2d 93
Docket Number: 29880
Court Abbreviation: Tex. Crim. App.
AI-generated responses must be verified and are not legal advice.