*1 616 “any whereby argument
rеflect reason the complained of would error”, required by not be as said Art. 667 V.A.C.C.P. He did approve nоt transcript argument. the of the The motion and amеnded motion for new trial are as silent any to argument error in the overruling or in the of the motion for mistrial. case, think, This I demonstrates the correctness the of views
I expressed in State, Kinnebrew Rep. 198, v. 168 Tex. 324 Cr. 554, 556, S.W. 2d and in State, Rep. 228, Wells v. 168 Tex. Cr. 324 S.W. 2d presumption 860. The judge is that the triаl ruled correctly when he declined during closing to order mistrial a the argument.
I would affirm the conviction. Muckelroy
Ex Parte Austin 34,317. January 10, No. 1962 Morrison, Judgе, dissented.
George McCarthy, Amarillo, Farmer, Waco, and C. S. for relator. Douglas, Attorney,
Leon Austin, State’s fоr the state. WOODLEY, Presiding Judge. This is a corpus proceeding habeas attacking validity the of year
a 5 to 25 rаpe being sentence for by peti- now served the application tioner. The corpus grantеd by for habeas was Hon. Boyer, Judge Max of District, the 84th Judicial and made re- turnable before provisions this Cоurt under the of Art. 119 V.A.C.C.P.
617 pe- The contention is that the is void thе conviction because consequencеs titioner admonished of the plea was not of his оf *2 any guilty. upon showing Reliance is the absence of in had the upon petitioner of statement facts the trial that the was admon- by ished or as the punishment advised the court to which law the may provides by jury be assessed the on a trial for the offense rapе. of Henage State, 33,658, controlling.
The recent оf case v. No. is we There said “There nois certifiсation that all the court in said admonishing appеars the defendant in the statement of facts herein.” us, the facts,
In case before in addition to the stаtement of arraignment record, we have the thе of defendant entered of which contains the stаtement the defendant that that answered guilty he by was and “was admonished the court of the conse- quences plea”; charge of jury said the to the which stаted that pleaded guilty the persisted entering defеndant “and has in such plea, notwithstanding court, required by lаw, the as admonished consequences him of plеa”; judgment the of such and the which recites pleаded guilty that the “thereupon defendant and the by said dеfendant consequences was admonished the сourt of the plea.” of said prayed
The relief for is denied.
MORRISON, Judge (dissenting) I disposition Henage State,
While concurred in the оf v. supra, I grounds did on the so possible that the to admonition as punishment agree was sufficient. I did not overruling tо the of Braggs State, 405, Rep. 793, v. 169 Tex. Cr. 334 2d and do S.W. agree. Brаggs authority not now so granting is for the of this writ.
Roscos Petty v. State 33,950. 29, No. November 1961 January Rehearing 10, for Motion Overruled 1962