*1 reject in the District conviction United States for the Northern District of Texas
did not constitute a conviction “this or any
state other state.”
Appellant’s remaining contentions general allegations of are No dis error. or argument support cussion advanced authorities are Noth same. No cited. presented ing is for review under Article Section Vernon’s Ann.C.C.P. judgment Opinion Approved by the Court.
Clyde INTICK, Perry Appellant, McCL STATE Ronald Charles W. Tessmer and L. Gor-
Court of Criminal anson, Dallas, appellant. for Butler, Atty., Rehearing Camp- May 1, Ted Dist. Luden Denied bell, Attys., Douglas Young, Asst. Dist. C. Antonio, Atty., San Austin, for the State.
DOUGLAS, Judge. is an from a conviction possession
the offense marihuana. court assessed w Appellant that the trial court contends accepting erred in -26.13, Ann. ground that C.C.P., complied with when inquire pled he so court failed “any persuasion or delusive cause of pardon.” *2 correctly The admonishment gave converse with appellant’s the him. No issue of range punishment. sanity of The trial court as- was showing raised. Absent a that appellant certained that pleading guilty sanity was an issue of was made at the time guilty plea because he was from fear entered, appellant not the was the promised any- and not he complain because had been cannot the trial of thing. questions court’s failure to ask or adduce sanity. evidence as to his Williams v. Appellant apparently recognizes that suf- State, State, supra; Tex.Cr.App., Kane v. compliance ficient with the statute was S.W.2d Espi- holdings made in under this Court’s Espinosa as in We hold we did State, Tex.Cr.App., nosa v. 493 S.W.2d supra, State, supra, and Kane v. and as we State, Tex.Cr.App., and Mitchell v. here, language do that while the exact of urges over- as he that we 26.13, supra, Article should in ad- be used adopt rule the dis- our decisions there and defendants, monishing the admonishment senting view in each those cases. in question compliance reflects sufficient we decline to do. with the statute. appears present in case the It that the The judgment position was in a better to determine court appellant pleading guilty that ONION, ROBERTS, J., J., P. dis- “ persuasion cause . . delusive . or sent. pardon” by ascertaining that he promised anything, nor was had not been THE OPINION ON APPELLANT’S doing it out of fear. Williams v. MOTION FOR REHEARING 306; Tex.Cr.App., Mitchell v. 497 S.W.2d State, supra. DALLY, Commissioner. Appellant’s Motion for Williams, appellant also supra, the Leave to
As in File the Motion for Rehearing grant- trial was it was error contends that appellant ed. The sanity. complained that due his question him about not to court given consideration was not 26.13, plea of to the follow- supra, provides that a ing ground appellate of error in his plainly raised it guilty shall not be received unless brief filed in the trial court. defendant is sane. appears that the “The failure court to in- trial that the The record reflects quire appellant of the anything he had if he had appellant’s counsel asked court say to in his own behalf to sen- sanity, to appellant’s opinion as the to tencing illegal.” rendered the sentence opinion his replied in counsel that which It is the that Arti- mind. appellant of sound the 42.07,1 cle not does Ann.C.C.P. to able observe court was pronounced. 42.07, fence be there is shall Where Y.A.C.C.P. 1. Article left, jury impaneled may sentence, time a be pronouncing sufficient the defend- “Before try anything the time to issue. Where insufficient he has whether be asked ant shall remain, why does not shall the say not be order should to safely only against defendant to be confined until the next pronounced reasons him. court, a shown, term of the and shall then cause which on account can impaneled try issue; to be such are: cannot “3. Where there has not been motion received defendant has That “1. judg- authority, trial or a proper new motion arrest of on the pardon from the may made, authenticated, ment the defendant that which, legally answer presentation of good grounds for either both of discharged. he has or he shall be insane; these and either or both motions and if motions That the defendant immediately disposed satisfy entered and proof the court be shown to sufficient days may of, although well-founded, have more than ten allegation no sen- that S.W.2d 39Vz — replace the common law
tion; is, opportunity for a defend- present personal
ant to the mitigation imposed.2 argues that sentence is He would therefore Article V.A.C.C.P.3 *3 give him the law allocu- to common
on. that he did admits this
not raise
contention before
imposition
sentence.
nothing
present
therefore find that
State, 498
ed for review. See
v.
Graham
(Tex.Cr.App.1973);
197
Valdez v.
(Tex.Cr.App.1972);
Opinion approved by the Court. CAMERON, Appellant, John T. Montford, Lubbock, appel- T. John lant. The STATE of and Atty., Austin, of Criminal State. 27, 1974.
DAVIS, Commissioner.
Appeal is taken from a conviction for robbery by firearms where jury. entered before the Punishment was assessed verdict; history elapsed since the rendition of Some of of common law States, tion is recited Green v. United person (1961). been con- who has When U.S. S.Ct. L.Ed.2d 670 escapes and before after conviction victed supposed and an individual V.A.C.C.P. provide same been “If this Code fails to rule of has arrested deny procedure any particular that he is the case state of accordingly may arise, convicted, person issue rules of the common identity.” applied govern.” before a as to his law shall tried