Case Name: GERARD v. STATE
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1922-01-04
Citations: 238 S.W. 924
Docket Number: No. 6446
Parties: GERARD v. STATE.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter
Volume: 238
Pages: 924–926

Head Matter:
GERARD v. STATE.
(No. 6446.)
(Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
Jan 4, 1922.
Rehearing Denied March 29, 1922.)
1. Criminal law <&wkey;>l202(5) — Verdict need not fix penalty for second conviction of robbery by assault.
Under Ren. Code 1911, art. 1619, providing that, where defendant, charged with a felony less than capital, has been before convicted of the same offense, the punishment on the second conviction shall be the highest which is affixed to the commission of such offense in ordinary cases, and article 1327, fixing the punishment for robbery by assault at imprisonment for life or for a term of years not less than five, the punishment for robbery by assault after a previous conviction fpr the same offense is absolutely fixed by law within Code Or. Proc. 1911, art. 770, so that a verdict of guilty without fixing any penalty was sufficient.
2. Criminal law <&wkey;l092(4) — Bill of exceptions held not to present exception taken at time of trial.
Where a purported bill of exceptions in a case which was tried on March 29th was not filed until April 15th, it is not sufficient to present any exception taken at the time of the trial.
On Motion for Rehearing.
3. Criminal law &wkey;>l056(2) — Failure to charge on issue of insanity cannot be reviewed without exception to the charge.
Under Vernon’s Ann. Code Cr. Proc. 1916, containing articles 735, 737, 743, as amended •by Acts 1913, c. 138, which prevent review of the charge unless exceptions thereto were taken when, it was submitted to counsel before being read to the jury, the failure of the court to charge on the issue of insanity cannot be reviewed in the absence of any exceptions to the charge, though it could have been reviewed without such exceptions under prior statutes.
Appeal from Criminal District Court, Harris County; C. W. Robinson, Judge.
G. P. Gerard was convicted of robbery, and sentenced to imprisonment for life, and he appeals.
Affirmed.
Geo. W. Dixon, of Houston, for appellant.
, E. T. Branch, Cr. Dist. Atty., of Houston, and R. G. Storey, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

Opinion:
HAWKINS, J.
Conviction is for robbery.' Penalty imprisonment for life.
Appellant was indicted for robbery by assault of J. E. Eyon on February 5, 1921. It was also properly alleged and proven that he had theretofore, in November, 1915, been convicted for a like offense, to wit, the robbery by assault of Henry Burrisk. Under proper instructions the jury found him guilty of the Dyon's robbery, and also found that he had theretofore been found guilty of the Bur-risk robbery. The jury fixed no punishment, and were not instructed as to any. Upon the verdict being returned the court entered judgment fixing the punishment at confinement 'in the penitentiary for life. Article 1327, P. C., fixes the punishment for robbery by assault (not with a firearm) at confinement in the penitentiary for life, or for a term of years not less than five. Article 1619, P. C., provides:
"If it be shown, on the trial of a felony less than capital, that the defendant has been before convicted of the same offense, or one of the same nature, the punishment on such second or other subsequent conviction shall be the highest which is affixed to the commission of such offenses in ordinary cases."
Article 770, C. O. P., is with reference to verdicts, and the province of the jury; the last sentence in the article being:
"They [the jury] shall assess the punishment in all cases where the same is not absolutely fixed by law to some particular penalty."
When under the law the punishment for murder in the first degree was death absolutely, a verdict finding accused guilty of that offense was sufficient, and the court fixed the penalty in the judgment. Murray v. State, 1 Tex. App. 430; Boothe v. State, 4 Tex. App. 212; O'Connor v. State, 37 Tex. Cr. R. 267, 39 S. W. 368. Upon the findings in the instant ease the punishment was "absolutely fixed by law." No discretion was left the jury in the matter. The verdict was sufficient, and the judgment properly entered thereon.
We find in the record what purports to be a bill of exceptions to the refusal of the court to submit the issue of insanity. The trial judge refused the bill with the following notation:
"There being no evidence to raise the issue of insanity in this case, this bill is refused."
The ease was tried on March 29, 1921. The bill was not filed until April 15, 1921, and is not sufficient to present an exception taken at the time of the trial. No objections or exceptions in writing were taken to the charge for failure to submit the issue of insanity as required by article 735, C. C. P., before the charge was read to the jury, and no special charge was requested on the subject. This being the condition of the record, we are without authority to review the question sought to be raised.
If there really be a question as to accused's sanity, he is not without remedy. See article 39, P. C., and articles 1017-1030, C. C. P.
No errors appearing from the record of which we can take cognizance, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
igsaPor other eases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes
<g=»For other cases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes