Case Name: Ex parte Walter Harley KEENER
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1958-06-04
Citations: 314 S.W.2d 93
Docket Number: No. 29880
Parties: Ex parte Walter Harley KEENER.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter Second Series
Volume: 314
Pages: 93–94

Head Matter:
Ex parte Walter Harley KEENER.
No. 29880.
Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
June 4, 1958.
L. P. Caston, Longview, for relator.
Leon B. Douglas, State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

Opinion:
MORRISON, Presiding Judge.
This is a habeas corpus proceeding wherein relator attacks as void the judgment and sentence under which he is confined in the penitentiary.
The conviction was in the Criminal District Court No. 2 of Dallas County. Though not appealed to this Court, the record of the evidence offered in the trial court is before us.
This case lies halfway between Crawford v. State, 161 Tex.Cr.R. 554, 278 S.W.2d 845, and Ex parte Clark, Tex.Cr.App., 299 S.W.2d 128, and involves an application of Article I, Section 10, Constitution of Texas, Vernon's Ann.St., and Article 12, Vernon's Ann.C.C.P. See also Shepherd v. State, 162 Tex.Cr.R. 235, 284 S.W.2d 155, and Ex parte Bruinsma, Tex.Cr.App., 298 S.W.2d 838.
The relator entered his plea of guilty before the court. His counsel waived the presence of the witnesses, and it was stipulated that if such witnesses were present they would testify to a certain state of facts which, if true, would have been sufficient to support the plea of guilty. Relator did not personally join in this stipulation but was sworn, testified and answered affirmatively when questioned if he had heard "this testimony as was stipulated here" and that it was substantially true and .correct.
In Harper v. State, 148 Tex.Cr.R. 354, 187 S.W.2d 570, this Court held that a judicial confession was sufficient to support a death penalty conviction even if the written confession be disregarded. Here we have a stipulation, plus the testimony of the accused that the matters stipulated were true and correct. This we deem sufficient to support the plea of guilty.
The writ of habeas corpus is denied.