Case Name: PATTON v. STATE
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1911-01-25
Citations: 136 S.W. 42
Docket Number: 
Parties: PATTON v. STATE.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter
Volume: 136
Pages: 42–45

Head Matter:
PATTON v. STATE.
(Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
Jan. 25, 1911.
On Motion for Rehearing, . April 5, 1911.)
1. Criminal Law (§ 942 ) — Motions for New Trial — Newly Discovered Evidence — Impeaching.
. Newly discovered evidence which only tends to impeach the state’s witness is not ground for a new trial in a criminal case.
[Ed. Note. — Eor other cases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. §§ 2331, 2332; Dec. Dig. § 042. ]
2. Criminal Law (§ 939 ) — Motions for New Trial — Newly Discovered Evidence — Diligence.
Where a defendant has used no diligence to obtain alleged newly discovered evidence, a new trial should not be granted.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. §§ 2318-2323; Dec. Dig. § 939. ]
On Motion for Rehearing.
3. Criminal Law (§ 916 ) — New Trial — Denial of Counsel.
Under Code Cr. Proc. 1895, art. 817, requiring a new trial where a defendant has been denied counsel, a defendant’s failure to employ counsel when not prevented by the state or court, is not ground for new trial, as the statute contemplates that the denial should be by the court or state.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. §§ 2159, 2160; Dec. Dig. § 916. ]
4. Criminal Law (§ 273 ) — Plea of Guilty.
Where the trial court admonished a defendant, as required by Code Cr. Proc. 1895, arts. 554, 555, before accepting a plea of guilty, the plea was voluntary, though a layman had advised the defendant to plead guilty, so as to receive the lightest sentence.
[Ed. Note. — For other eases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. §§ 631-634; Dec. Dig. § 273. ].
5. Criminal Law (§ 1142 ) — Appeal — Presumptions — Regularity of Jury.
Code Cr. Proc. 1895, art. 904, giving the Court of Criminal Appeals power to award new trials, provides that it shall be presumed that the jury was properly impaneled and sworn, unless made an issue in the court below and appearing by the bill of exceptions; and hence a judgment of conviction, reciting that “thereupon a jury, to wit - and 11 others were duly selected,” etc., raises no presumption that the jury was composed of more than 12; the blank being left for the name of the twelfth man, who is always foreman.
[Ed. Note — For other eases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. §§ 3014-3037; Dee. Dig. § 1142. ]
6. Criminal Law (§ 995 ) — Appeal—Harmless Ebror — JudgmentsSentence.
A judgment of conviction recited that the defendant is guilty as confessed in his plea of guilty, and, his punishment having been fixed at “five years confinement in the penitentiary,” he is to be punished “by confinement in the penitentiary for five years.” The judgment of sentence, after reciting the provisions of the judgment of conviction, ordered that defendant be delivered to the superintendent of penitentiaries, by whom he “shall be confined in said —-- for five years, in accordance with the provisions of the law governing the - of said state.” Held, that such defects in the judgment of sentence were not ground for reversal.
[Ed. Note.- — For other cases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. §§ 2518-2543; Dec. Dig. § 995. ]
7. Criminal Law (§ 995 ) — Judgment.
That such judgment of sentence was not numbered or dated was not ground for reversal.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. §§ 2518-2543; Dec. Dig. § 995. ]
8. Criminal Law (§ 1028 ) — Appeal—Presentation oe Grounds of Review in Court Below.
Grounds for a new trial set up for the first time in motions for rehearing after the appellate court has affirmed the conviction cannot be considered, as the statute requires such matters to be complained of below and shown by a bill of exceptions, in order to give the trial court a chance to correct errors.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. §§ 2619-2620; Dec. Dig. § 1028. ]
9. Criminal Law (§ 1169 ) — Appeal—Harmless Error.
Where evidence was introduced after a defendant pleaded guilty, to enable the jury to fix the penalty and they fixed the lightest sentence, its admission was harmless.
[Ed. Note. — For other eases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. §§ 3137-3143; Dec. Dig. § 1169. ]
Appeal from District Court, Shelby County ; Tom C. Davis, Special Judge.
Wyatt Patton was convicted of sodomy, and appeals.
Affirmed.
Homer E. ’Stephenson, for appellant. John A. Mobley, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
Por other .cases see same topic and section NUMBER in Dec. Dig. & Am. Dig. Key No. Series & Rep’r Indexes
For other cases see same topic and section NUMBER in Dec. Dig. & Am. Dig. Key No. Series & Rep’r Indexes

Opinion:
PRENDERGAST, J.
On September 10, 1908, the appellant was indicted for the offense of sodomy, alleged to have been committed February 10,1908. The appellant was tried about February 27, 1910, pleaded guilty, and the jury assessed his penalty at five years in the penitentiary. The state introduced only one witness, whose testimony was sufficient to show the act of sodomy by the appellant, especially in connection with defendant's plea of guilty.
The judgment of the court and the hill of exceptions also shows clearly and fully that, before the court would receive the plea of guilty, the judge fully admonished the defendant in all of the particulars required under the statute. The defendant still persisting in his plea of guilty, the court accepted it, and soon after the verdict sentenced him. The appellant was not represented by an attorney.
'Some two weeks after his conviction and sentence he had an attorney to file a motion for new trial for him on several grounds. First, because he had been denied counsel as to his defense. There is nothing in this contention, because the record does not show he was denied counsel.
The second ground is that he was induced to plead guilty, because one Pearce for whom he had worked for about a year told him that if he plead guilty he would receive the lowest penalty, two years, and if he fought the case the jury would fix his term at 15 years. The defendant, having pleaded guilty after the court fully and clearly admonished him as required by law, cannot afterwards successfully claim any such ground for a new trial, and this case does not come within any of the cases where fraud was practiced on the defendant to induce him to plead guilty.
The third ground is newly discovered evidence. No diligence whatever is shown to procure such evidence, and the claimed newly discovered evidence set out is more in the nature of impeaching the state's witness, and of the state's witness' claimed admissions to the party who proposed to testify thereto, than of any pertinent new evidence. In his^motion for new trial which defendant swore to, he states he did not know of this evidence before; but on the hearing of his motion he testified, and not only failed to show any diligence whatever to get this testimony, but failed to show that he did not know the same thing before. The district attorney in the court below objected to the consideration of the motion for new trial by the lower court on various grounds. However, the district judge heard the motion, heard the evidence thereon, and denied the motion.
There is no reversible error pointed out in the record. Hence the case is affirmed.