Case ID: sw_234/html/0886-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "MORROW, P. J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

CONNALLY v. STATE.
    (No. 6474.)
    (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    Nov. 16, 1921.)
    1. Criminal law<&wkey;>304(l) — Omission of written charge in felony case is fundamental error.
    Failure to comply with the requirement of Vernon’s Ann. Code Cr. Proc. 1916, arts. 735, 737a, 740, that a written charge to the jury be given in all felony cases, is fundamental error.
    2. Criminal law <&wkey;l 172(10) — Omission of written charge after plea of guilty With lowest punishment is not prejudicial.
    Where the jury assessed the lowest punishment permissible under the statute upon a defendant who had pleaded guilty, and thereby conclusively admitted the evidence was sufficient to support conviction, the error in failing'to give a written charge was not prejudicial.
    3. Chattel mortgages <&wkey;232 — Indictment alleging assignment defective where mortgage recited indebtedness to another.
    An indictment for the fraudulent disposition of mortgaged chattels which alleged that the mortgage was given to an individual who had transferred it to a bank was fatally defective where the mortgage as set out in the indictment showed that the indebtedness secured thereby was a note payable to a different bank, and there was no allegation that the debt had been transferred to the bank named as transferee of the mortgage.
    4. Chattel mortgages <&wkey;205 — Ownership follows transfer of secured debt.
    A chattel mortgage is a lien, and, where given to secure a note, the transfer of the ownership of the note is followed by the' mortgage, and an assignment of the mortgage to one not shown to be the holder of the note conveys nothing.
    Appeal from District Court, Reeves County; Okas. Gibbs, Judge.
    W. Zj. Connally was convicted, of tbe fraudulent disposition of mortgaged property, and be appeals.
    Reversed and remanded.
    Ben Palmer, of Pecos, for appellant.
    R. G. Storey, Asst. Atty. Gen., for tbe State.
   MORROW, P. J.

Conviction is for tbe fraudulent disposition of mortgaged property; punishment fixed at confinement in tbe penitentiary for a period of two years.

A plea of guilty was entered. No written charge was given the jury. Tbe offense was punishable by confinement in tbe penitentiary for not less than two nor more than five years. A written charge to the jury is made essential in all felony cases. Vernon’s Ann. Code Cr. Proc. 1916, arts. 735, 737a, and 740. Tbe error in failing to comply is fundamental. Williams v. State, 18 Tex. App. 409; West v. State, 2 Tex. App. 209; White’s Ann. Texas Code Cr. Proc. § 793; Willson’s Ann. Code Cr. Proc. art. 680, § 2356; Woodall v. State, 58 Tex. Cr. R. 513, 126 S. W. 592. The error, to require a reversal, must he calculated to injure the rights of the accused or militate against a fair and impartial trial. Under a plea of guilty the evidence is conclusively admitted to be sufficient to support tbe conviction. Doans v. State, 37 S. W. 751. This being true, and tbe lowest pun-, ishment having been assessed, the injurious effect of the error is apparently excluded.

In the indictment it is charged that on the 8th day of July appellant executed to A. M. Warren a mortgage on the property described ; that, before it was sold by appellant, the mortgage, which was valid, subsisting, and unsatisfied, had been transferred to the Citizens’ State Bank of Toyah, Tex., and that at the time of the sale said bank was the owner and holder of the said mortgage,, which is set out in hsec verba and contains the following declaration:

“This conveyance, however, is intended as a mortgage, I being indebted to the said A. M. Warren in the sum of ($235.00) two hundred and thirty-five dollars, as evidenced by a certain promissory note bearing date 8th day of July, A. D. 1820, and due 15th day of November, A. D. 1920, and bearing interest at the rate of 10 per cent, per annum from maturity until paid, and payable to the order of the Toyah Valley State Bank and providing for usual 10 per cent, attorney’s fees.”

The sufficiency of the indictment is attacked, and we think, justly so, for the reason that it is made manifest by the indictment that the mortgage was made to secure a note, and not payable to Warren, but to another party, namely, the Toyah Valley State Bank.. Warren, according to the indictment, transferred the mortgage to the Citizens’ State Bank of Toyah, but, so far as the averments disclose, tlm note has not been transferred and may still be the property of the Toyah Valley State Bank, which was not the party against ■which the alleged intent to injure was directed.

A mortgage is a lien, and, where given to secure a note, the transfer of the ownership of the note is followed by the mortgage. The indebtedness which the mortgage is made to secure is the vital part. Ruling Case Raw, vol. 19, p. 347, § 120. Under- the averments in the indictment in connection with the mortgage, which is set out therein, the Citizens’ State Bank of Toyah would have acquired nothing by the assignment of the mortgage by Warren unless it also acquired title to the indebtedness which the mortgage secured, which indebtedness was evidenced by a note payable to the Toyah Valley State Bank. In the absence of averment showing the acquisition of the debt by the Citizens’ State Bank, we think the indictment was obnoxious, to the criticisms directed against it, and that the court should have sustained appellant’s motion in arrest of judgment.

The judgment is reversed, and the cause remanded. 
      <§5»For other cases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes