Case Name: Billy STANLEY, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee; Theo Ray THAMES, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee; Robert CURRY, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee; Roy Earl DAVID, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee; Reginald Edison WRIGHT, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee; Charles C. SMITH, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee; Cornelius TEA, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee; Elmer BRANCH, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee; Samuel MATTHEWS, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee; Leopoldo MORALES, Jr., Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee; Arlice James HUFFMAN, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1972-12-06
Citations: 490 S.W.2d 828
Docket Number: Nos. 43907, 42540, 43602, 42663, 39803, 41697, 42605, 42306, 44062, 42743, and 42596
Parties: Billy STANLEY, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee. Theo Ray THAMES, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee. Robert CURRY, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee. Roy Earl DAVID, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee. Reginald Edison WRIGHT, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee. Charles C. SMITH, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee. Cornelius TEA, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee. Elmer BRANCH, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee. Samuel MATTHEWS, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee. Leopoldo MORALES, Jr., Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee. Arlice James HUFFMAN, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.
Judges: ODOM, J., not participating in David and Tea.
Reporter: South Western Reporter Second Series
Volume: 490
Pages: 828–834

Head Matter:
Billy STANLEY, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee. Theo Ray THAMES, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee. Robert CURRY, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee. Roy Earl DAVID, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee. Reginald Edison WRIGHT, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee. Charles C. SMITH, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee. Cornelius TEA, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee. Elmer BRANCH, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee. Samuel MATTHEWS, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee. Leopoldo MORALES, Jr., Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee. Arlice James HUFFMAN, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.
Nos. 43907, 42540, 43602, 42663, 39803, 41697, 42605, 42306, 44062, 42743, and 42596.
Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
Dec. 6, 1972.
Rehearings Denied Jan. 24, 1973 in Nos. 43907, 43602 and 42306.
Rehearing Denied March 7, 1973 in No. 42743.
Melvin Bruder, Dallas, James R. Catón, Cleatus M. Phelan, McKinney, for Billy Stanley.
Tom Ryan, County Atty., Tom O’Connell, Asst. County Atty., McKinney, Jim D. Vollers, State's Atty., and Robert A. Huttash, Asst. State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.
Will Gray, Houston, Dalton Gandy, Fort Worth, for Theo Ray Thames.
Frank Coffey, Dist. Atty., Truman Power, John Brady, and R. J. Adcock, Asst. Dist. Attys., Fort Worth, Jim D. Vollers, State’s Atty., and Robert A. Huttash, Asst. State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.
Walter S. Smith, Jr. (Court appointed on appeal), G. Stanley Rentz, Waco (Court appointed), for Robert Curry.
Martin D. Eichelberger, Dist. Atty., Frank M. Fitzpatrick, Jr., Kenneth H.
Crow and James R. Barlow, Asst. Dist. Attys., Waco, Jim D. Vollers, State’s Atty., and Robert A. Huttash, Asst. State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.
Will Gray, Johnnie Abercia, Houston, for Roy Earl David.
Carol S. Vance, Dist. Atty., Phyllis Bell and Thomas C. Dunn, Asst. Dist. Attys., Houston, Jim D. Vollers, State’s Atty., and Robert A. Huttash, Asst. State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.
Will Gray, Houston, Jack Beech (on appeal only), Alfred J. Jackson, Fort Worth (court appointed), for Reginald Edison Wright.
Frank Coffey, Dist. Atty., Glenn Goodnight, Grady Hight, and Roger Crampton, Asst. Dist. Attys., Fort Worth, Jim D. Vollers, State’s Atty., and Robert A. Hut-tash, Asst. State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.
Marvin O. Teague, Houston (on appeal only), for Charles C. Smith.
Carol S. Vance, Dist. Atty., James C. Brough and Thomas C. Dunn, Asst. Dist. Attys., Houston, Jim D. Vollers, State’s Atty., and Robert A. Huttash, Asst. State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.
Will Gray, C. C. Divine, Houston, for Cornelius Tea.
Carol S. Vance, Dist. Atty., James C. Brough and Tom Dunn, Asst. Dist. Attys., Houston, Jim D. Vollers, State’s Atty., and Robert A. Huttash, Asst. State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.
Melvyn Carson Bruder, Barry P. Helft, Dallas, Charles Alan Wright, Austin, J. G. Souris, Vernon, for Elmer Branch.
Bill Neal, Dist. Atty., Vernon, Jim D. Vollers, State’s Atty., and Robert' A. Huttash, Asst. State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.
John B. Patrick, Houston, for Samuel Matthews.
Wiley L. Cheatham, Dist. Atty., Cuero, Jim D. Vollers, State’s Atty., and Robert A. Huttash, Asst. State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.
Richard T. Marshall, and J. G. Lay, El Paso, for Leopoldo Morales.
Jamie C. Boyd, Dist. Atty., Thomas F. Keever, Asst. Dist. Atty., El Paso, Jim D. Vollers, State’s Atty., and Robert A. Hut-tash, Asst. State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.
David Ball, Jr., Houston (Court appointed), Will Gray, Houston, for Arlice James Huffman.
Carol S. Vance, Dist. Atty., James C. Brough and Erwin G. Ernst, Asst. Dist. Attys., Houston, Jim D. Vollers, State’s Atty., and Robert A. Huttash, Asst. State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

Opinion:
OPINION
ROBERTS, Judge.
These cases come to us on remand from the United States Supreme Court. All appellants were convicted of murder with malice except for Smith and Branch, who were convicted of rape, and punishment was assessed at death. These convictions have all been affirmed by this Court. In Furman v. Georgia (Branch v. Texas), 408 U.S. 238, 92 S.Ct. 2726, 33 L.Ed.2d 346 (1972), the United States Supreme Court held that the death penalty, as currently imposed, is unconstitutional.
Subsequently, Governor Preston Smith, acting upon the recommendation of the Board of Pardons and Paroles, has granted each appellant a commutation of sentence, from death to life imprisonment.
Appellants now contend that since the judgment was vacated by the United States Supreme Court, there exists no procedure to validly sentence them and, therefore, we should either grant them a new trial, permit them to be re-sentenced by a jury, or release them from custody.
We disagree. The Governor's commutation is valid. We are cognizant of the due process argument raised by appellants. The contention is that appellants have been deprived of their right to have a jury assess the punishment. We are not swayed by the out-of-state cases cited by appellants in support of their argument. See Anderson v. State, 267 So.2d 8 (Fla., 1972); In re Baker, 267 So.2d 331 (Fla.,1972); Huggins v. Commonwealth, Va., 191 S.E.2d 734 (1972); Beaver v. State, 475 S.W.2d 557 (Tenn.Sup.Ct.1971). We are further aware of appellants' argument that when the Governor and Board of Pardons and Paroles acted to commute the sentences, they did so without notifying appellants or their attorneys and thus denied them the right to be heard. Such a notification procedure is not necessary to effectuate either the Governor's or the Board's powers.
There is no reason to conclude that the Governor's constitutionally granted commutation powers are rendered invalid in such cases. This Court only recently dealt with this problem and we see no reason to depart from that holding. See Whan v. State, 485 S.W.2d 275 (Tex.Cr.App.1972).
The order of the Supreme Court is satisfied.
The judgments are affirmed.
ODOM, J., not participating in David and Tea.
DOUGLAS, J., not participating in Branch, Wright and Smith.
. See Stanley v. State, 471 S.W.2d 72 (Tex.Cr.App.1971); Thames v. State, 453 S.W.2d 495 (Tex.Cr.App.1970); Curry v. State, 468 S.W.2d 455 (Tex.Cr.App.1971); David v. State, 453 S.W.2d 172 (Tex.Cr.App.1970); Wright v. State, 422 S.W.2d 184 (Tex.Cr.App.1967); Smith v. State, 437 S.W.2d 835 (Tex.Cr.App.1969); Tea v. State, 453 S.W.2d 179 (Tex.Cr.App.1970); Branch v. State, 447 S.W.2d 932 (Tex.Cr.App.1969); Matthews v. State, 471 S.W.2d 834 (Tex.Cr.App.1971); Morales v. State, 458 S.W.2d 56 (Tex.Cr.App.1970); and Huffman v. State, 450 S.W.2d 858 (Tex.Cr.App.1970).