Case Name: Monroe Boyce v. The State
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1902-01-29
Citations: 43 Tex. Crim. 459
Docket Number: No. 2364
Parties: Monroe Boyce v. The State.
Judges: 
Reporter: Texas Criminal Reports
Volume: 43
Pages: 459–462

Head Matter:
Monroe Boyce v. The State.
No. 2364.
Decided January 29, 1902.
Motion for Rehearing Decided February 19, 1902.
1.—New Trial—Newly Discovered Testimony.
On a trial for aggravated assault, where defendant pleaded “guilty,” and moreover was fully identified by the prosecutor as the party who committed the assault upon him, a motion for new trial, for newly discovered evidence to prove that defendant was not the party who committed the assault, was properly refused.
ON MOTION FOR REHEARING.
2.—Practice on Appeal—Rehearing—Mistake as to an Immaterial Fact.
The fact that this court on appeal, in its original opinion, stated that de fendant withdrew his plea of not guilty and entered a plea of guilty, when in fact his counsel withdrew the plea of not guilty and entered the plea of guilty for him, is immaterial and no ground for a rehearing where it was made to appear that defendant was present in court at the time and that his counsel acted for him in the matter.
3.—Same.
The fact that this court, on appeal, in its opinion, stated that after a “second consultation” with his attorneys the plea of not guilty was withdrawn, when in fact there was but one consultation between defendant and his attorneys before the plea was withdrawn, is immaterial and constitutes no ground for a rehearing.
Appeal from the County Court of Hunt. Tried below before Hon. R. D. Thompson, County Judge.
Appeal from a conviction of aggravated assault; penalty, a fine of $25.
The information charged appellant with an aggravated assault with a stick, a deadly weapon, and the infliction of serious bodily injury upon one Charley Flanders, on the 26th day of August, 1901. The case is sufficiently stated in the opinion.
Huffar', Nichols & Rollins, for appellant.
RoVl A. John, Assistant Attorney-General, for the State.

Opinion:
DAVIDSOFT, Presiding Judge.
Appellant was convicted of an aggravated assault, and fined $25. When the case was called for trial, he entered a plea of not guilty. Evidence was introduced in behalf of the State, followed by witnesses for defendant, including himself. After defendant was excused from the witness stand and consulted with his attorneys, he was recalled as a witness, and further testified that certain portions of his prior statements were false; that he was in South Green-ville directly after the assault was committed upon Flanders, whereas in his prior statement he stated he was not at that point. He was again excused as a witness, and had further consultation with has attorneys. At the conclusion of the second consultation, he withdrew the plea of not guilty, and entered a plea of guilty. The judgment recites that defendant pleaded guilty. The court verbally instructed the jury to find defendant guilty, which they did, assessing his fine at $25. Appellant filed a motion for new trial, setting up newly discovered testimony of two witnesses who stated they were cognizant of the fact that appellant was not the party who made the assault upon Flanders, but that it was made by one Dan Wright. The court refused to grant a new trial, and appeal was prosecuted. This action of the court is assigned as error. The State fully sustained the allegations of the indictment that defendant was the party who committed the assault. The assaulted party, Flanders, identified defendant as the man who struck him, and gave the facts connected with his knowledge and acquaintanceship with appellant. In addition to this, appellant pleaded guilty. Under this character of case, we do not believe the motion for new trial should have been granted. The judgment is affirmed.
Affirmed.