Case Name: Wyatt Patton v. The State
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1911-01-25
Citations: 62 Tex. Crim. 28
Docket Number: No. 906
Parties: Wyatt Patton v. The State.
Judges: 
Reporter: Texas Criminal Reports
Volume: 62
Pages: 28–32

Head Matter:
Wyatt Patton v. The State.
No. 906.
Decided January 25, 1911.
Rehearing Denied April 5, 1911.
1. —Sodomy—Plea of Guilty.
Where, upon trial of sodomy, defendant pleaded guilty after being fully and clearly admonished by the court, as required by law, and there was no showing in the record on appeal that any fraud had been practiced on defendant, there was no error.
2. —Same—Denial of Counsel.
Where, upon appeal from a conviction of sodomy, the record showed that the appellant had ample time and opportunity to employ counsel, but did not do so, there was no ground for reversal that he was denied counsel.
3. —Same—Practice on Appeal—Motion for Rehearing—Presumption.
Where the ground of complaint was for the first time set up in the motion for rehearing in the Appellate Court, the same can not be considered; and, therefore, the complaint that the jury consisted of more than twelve men, can not be presumed.
4. —Same—Judgment—Sentence—Practice on Appeal.
Where, upon appeal from a conviction of sodomy, it appeared from the record that the judgment of conviction and sentence were properly entered, the contention that the judgment of sentence was not numbered or dated and did not show that defendant was to be confined in the penitentiary was without merit; besides such matters must be complained of in the lower court and duly reserved by bill of exceptions.
5. —Same—Evidence—Fixing Penalty.
Upon trial of sodomy there was no error in permitting the State to introduce testimony for the purpose of furnishing the jury data to fix the penalty after defendant’s plea of guilty; besides the lowest penalty was affixed and there was no injury to defendant.
Appeal from the District Court of Shelby. Tried below before the Hon. Tom C. Davis, Special Judge.
Appeal from a conviction of sodomy; penalty, five years imprisonment in the penitentiary.
The opinion states the case.
H. E. Stephenson, for appellant.
On the question of the plea of guilty: Woodall v. State, 58 Texas Crim. Rep., 513, 126 S. W. Rep., 591; Sanders v. State, 18 Texas Crim. App., 373.
Upon.'question that defendant was not tried by a legal jury: Woodall v. State, 58 Texas Crim. Rep., 513, 126 S. W. Rep., 591; Stell v. State, 14 Texas Crim. App., 59; 12 Cye., 737.
C. E. Lane, Assistant Attorney-General, for the State.

Opinion:
PRENDERGAST, Judge.
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, plead 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 bill 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 fifteen years. The defendant having plead guilty after the court fully and clearly admonished him as required by law, can not 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. Ho 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.
Affirmed.