*1 “Q. rеsponsive answer from the witness. you through elicit a Okay. Could see him court, which instructed you
that window all when Apparently sitting in on the prosecutor were the сar? to comment “not answers,” questions construed this and him, Sir, I just glanced “A. whenever cautious trial way. mark the same The I backing was away. protected aрpellant’s court’s instruction “Q. he on the phone? Was State, 514 rights. See Stein v. “A. Yes he was. Sir (Tex.Cr.App.1974); Barnes “Q. you anything Did about his (Tex.Cr.App.1973). S.W.2d 738 or nose mouth unusual? “A. something covering, He had I be- penalty penal death is harsh it was hand lieve side of when ty; especially it is harsh assessed face, his Sir. years who is seventeen “Q. tell yоu Could it was? what he age appellant when commit as was the No, Sir, “A. I ted in view of the couldn’t. the offense. savage, appellant murder for ruthless “Q. you Did have an idea? entire was and view of the convicted Your Hon- “[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: record, penal death say we cannot or, this, object I answer- ty unjust. assessed is ed the question. “THE judgment COURT: Sustained. affirmed.
“Q. trying get Just truth. Where VOLLERS, participating. you
did drive— Your Hon- “[DEFENSE COUNSEL]:
or, trying object. I’m FOR THE Ex-
“[COUNSEL STATE]: me, objection. cuse I didn’t hear the even object We “[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: request to Mr. sidebar Eads’ remarks that he be nоt to make such instructed Michael J. PAPRSKAR. the jury remarks and be instructed to disregard it. No. 57049. “THE I COURT: sustain and ask coun- Court of
sel questions not to comment on the En Banc. disregard jury answers and ask the just comment he made.” Oct.
Appellant’s motion for mistrial was over- Rehearing Denied Nov. ruled.
Appellant argues prosecutor’s re- that the imply appellant’s mark meant to prevent jury counsel wished from learning by ap- the truth. The cases cited
pellant judgments in which the were re- prosecutor argued
versed was trying defense counsel to hide the truth jury involved statements measur- ably involved here. more blatant than that (Tex.Cr.
See Lewis v. App.1975); Lopez prose- We construe remark, being cutor’s rather an attack than appellant’s counsel, attempt *2 Huntsville, for Anderson, appellant.
Ken pro se. Paprskar, Michael J. Atty., Marvin Curry, Tim Dist. Collins Fender, Attys., Asst. Dist. and Howard M. Worth, Fort for. the State.
OPINION
VOLLERS, Judge. purported appeal is a from order
This
dismissing petition
expunge
arrest rec-
V.A.C.
pursuant
filed
ords
County, Texas.
C.P. in Tarrant
peti
this Court reversed
In 1972
murder,
Paprskar
tioner’s
(Tex.Cr.App.1972),
plea
guilty
and he thereafter
(20) year sen
twenty
and was assessed
in the Tex-
confined
presently
tence. He
(1) by con-
cause either
оf this
pursuant
of Corrections
cor-
habeas
as a writ of
struing
such conviction.1
V.A.C.C.P.,or
pus pursuant
single
27,1977,2petitioner filed a
July
On
re-evaluating our
alternative, (2) by
of Ar-
“petition
of Records
to hold that
“which
prior decisions
No. 4 of
rest” in the
within
case”
County alleging
that some
*3
the
5 of
V,
Article
Section
meaning of
of fifteen
аrrests contained in the records
Texas Constitution.
and Federal
(15)
County,
different
State
of
Agencies3 had not resulted in the return
The Court of Criminal
peti-
against
an indiсtment or information
it has
whether
determine
jurisdiction
has
tioner;
that
alleged
petition
the
further
State, 169 Tex.Cr.R.
v.
Reid
jurisdiction.
and the
petitioner
been released
had
v.
(1960); Nichlos
140
261,
subsequent
him dismissed
charges against
367,
522
255
had not
petitioner
and that
158 Tex.Cr.R.
to such arrests
434,
(5)
felony
a
in the five
54 Tex.Cr.R.
been convicted of
v.
(1953); Hinman
arrest.4
allegations
the dates of each
years preceding
(1908).
280
alleged had occurred between
The arrests
of
Expunction
for
petition
by
raised
the
24, 1967,
21,
a
1955 and November
June
is
petitioner
that
reveal
patently
Arrests
twelve
span
years.
of
pursuant to
restrained
neither confined
the
which is made
action
State
the Honorable Gor-
On November
Articles 11.22and
petition.
of
of his
See
Gray, Judge
don
of
disposition
an order
County,
No. 4 of Tarrant
would the
Nor
V.A.C.C.P.
the un-
dismissing
pеtition
the
“because of
or
the fact
duration
affect
petitioner’s claim
infirmity
of the
Rodri
v.
CF. Preiser
of his confinement.
Act,”
disposition
such
basing
of
1827,
Records
36 L.Ed.2d
475, 93 S.Ct.
guez, 411 U.S.
Petitioner
upon
finding
vagueness.
of
that
hold
(1973). We therefore
439
on Novem-
appeal
thereafter filed notice of
as a
not,
be construed
is
аnd cannot
10,
ber
1977.
which
corpus
of habeas
petition for writ
of this Court.
jurisdiction
invoke the
brief,
argues
By supplemental
petitioner
11.23,supra.5
has
11.22 and
find that it
Articles
only that
Court should
not
(1)
or information
allege
an indictment
Though petitioner
that he is
fails to
an offense
presented
him for
Department
been
of Corrеc-
confined in the Texas
arising
for which he
tions,
transaction
judicial
out of the
of our
takes
arrested;
proceedings.
in such related
records
chаrge, if
(2)
Flores,
has been released
Furthermore, also be it should given no noted that there is V.A.C.C.P., whatever the by Chapter It is well might be. court settled this State BONDS, Appellant, William Louis statutory рarte Ex right. generally is a 7, 1978) (Decided June 57,268 Spring, No. Texas, Appellee. The STATE Savage v. (1950). The Tex.Cr.R. No. constitutional Appeals of Criminal statu to such Panel mаy limitations tory exceptions 1, 1978. Nov. legislature. prescribed by the supra; Spring, Denied Dec. supra; Rehearing En Banc Bennett, (Tex.Cr. S.W. We find neither App.1919). confer authority which would