Case ID: tex-crim_92/html/0340-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "HAWKINS, Judge. LATTIMORE, Judge.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

A. R. Pittman v. The State.
    No. 7003.
    Decided June 23, 1922.
    Rehearing Denied October 11, 1922.
    1. — Theft of Automobile — Temporary Taking.
    Where, upon trial of theft of an automobile, defendant pleaded guilty and was represented by counsel, and no exception was taken to the court’s charge, and in the absence of a withdrawal of the plea of guilty, his contention that the evidence raised the issue of temporary taking, cannot be considered on appeal. Following Garcia v. State, 237 S. W. Rep., 279.
    2. — Same—Rehearing—Suspended Sentence.
    Where defendant in his motion for new trial did not contend that he was wrongfully induced to plead guilty, etc., and the evidence supported the conviction, the jury declining a suspended sentence, there was no reversible error.
    
      Appeal from the District Court of Stephens. Tried below before the Honorable C. O. Hamlin.
    Appeal from a conviction of theft of an automobile; penalty, five years imprisonment in the penitentiary.
    . The opinion states the case.
    
      V. L. Shurtleff, for appellant.
    
      R. G. Storey, Assistant Attorney General, for the State.
   HAWKINS, Judge.

— Appellant was indicted for theft of an automobile. He entered a plea of guilty under all the formalities of the law, and requested a suspended sentence. The jury fixed his punishment at five years in the penitentiary and denied the suspended sentence. He now contends that notwithstanding his plea of guilty his evidence raised,the issue of a temporary taking only, and that this issue should have been submitted to the jury.

Appellant was represented on his trial by an attorney. No exception was taken to the charge; no special charge was requested presenting the issue; no request for withdrawal of the plea of guilty was made. It appears to be a case where appellant was relying on securing a suspended sentence, and being disappointed in this, is now asking this court to relieve him of the result of bad judgment in pleading. Much the same condition was presented in Garcia v. State, 91 Texas Crim. Rep., 9, 237 S. W. Rep., 279. We there said: “If appellant regarded the evidence .as insufficient and desired the question reviewed on appeal, he should have withdrawn his plea of guilty and entered the plea of not guilty.”

However, we have reviewed the evidence and from the entire record we do not regard the issue of a “temporary taking” seriously raised. Certainly it will not justify a reversal as not supporting the verdict.

The judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed.

on rehearing.

October 11, 1922.

LATTIMORE, Judge.

— As stated in the original opinion herein, there was a plea of guilty by appellant. The jury declined to grant him a suspended sentence and gave him a term of five years in the penitentiary. In his motion for new trial appellant does not contend that he was wrongfully induced to plead guilty, nor is it contended that he was- not of sound mind, nor that he was unduly influenced. The evidence appearing in the record amply supports the verdict of the jury, and we are unable to find anything upon which this court would be induced to grant the motion for rehearing. The motion, therefore, will be overruled.

Overruled.