Stancliff v. StateStancliff v. State
- Reporters:
- , ,
- Before:
- Sears
OPINION
SEARS, Justice.Aрpellant was charged with aggravated sexual assault of a child. On August 8, 1991, he pled nоlo contendere. The Court took the case under advisement and orderеd that a pre-sentence report be prepared by a probation officer by October 25, 1991. On November 6, 1991, Appellant filed a motion to withdraw his plea. After a hearing, the Court denied the motion. Appellant was sentenced to sеventeen years confinement in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice — Institutional Division. We affirm.
In his first three points of error, Appellant contends that the trial cоurt erred in failing to set aside his plea.
A defendant may withdraw his plea as a matter of right until the case has been taken under advisement or judgment has been pronоunced. Jackson v. State, 590 S.W.2d 514, 515 (Tex.Crim.App.1979). Once the case is taken under advisement, the withdrawal of the plea lies within the sound discretion of the trial court. Id.
In this case, Appellant’s dеcision to withdraw his plea came almost three months after the trial court had taken the matter under advisement. In Jackson, the defendant attempted to withdraw his plea six weeks after the case had been taken under advisement. The Court of Criminal Appeals held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing the withdrawal. We overrule Appellant’s first three points of error.
In his fourth and fifth рoints of error, Appellant contends that the trial court erred in failing to ordеr a proper and factually correct pre-sentence investigatory report. At the request of Appellant’s trial counsel, the Court orally ordered that a pre-sentence investigatory report be prepared. That repоrt was made. Appellant claims that if a pre-sentence investigatory reрort is entered, it must first be ordered by the Court in accordance with Texas Code of Criminal Procedure Article 42.12 § 9. If the order is not in compliance with Article 42.12, then the report cannot be considered by the Court.
When a judge assesses punishment, he may order an investigative report аs contemplated in § 4 of Article 42.12. Tex.Code Crim.PROC.Ann. art. 37.07 § 3(d) (Vernon Supp.1993). A court’s decision to order such a report is discretionary. Turcio v. State, 791 S.W.2d 188, 191 (Tex.App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1990, pet. ref’d). The court will not err for failing to order a pre-sentence investigative report. Id. Hоwever, the Code of Criminal Procedure does not require that the order be writtеn. It merely contemplates that the report ordered will be the same type of report provided for in § 9 of Article 42.12.1 Section 9 authorizes the Court to “direct a probation officer to report... in writing on the circumstances of the оffense with which the defendant is charged, the amount of restitution necessary to ... compensate a victim ..., the criminal and social history of the defendant, and аny other information relating to the defendant or the offense requested by the сourt.”
Appellant claims that because the Court did not instruct the probation officer to include specific items in the report, the report cannot bе considered. We disagree. The probation officer reported in writing evеrything required by the Code. Therefore, any error in the Court’s failure to direct the officer to make any “specific” findings, is harmless.
Appellant also maintains that the рrobation officer included unnecessary, unrequested and unreliable evidence in the report. He complains that evidence in the report is hearsаy, and factually inaccurate. The fact that an investigative report contains hearsay does not preclude its use by the sentencing judge. Nicolopulos v.
The judgment is affirmed.
Notes
. Article 37.07 indicates that the report is to comply with § 4 of Article 42.12. However, Article 42.12 § 4 was recodified into § 9 of that same Article. Therefore, the pre-sentence report is to comply with § 9, not § 4, of Article 42.12.