Court Opinion

ID: 9661497
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 22:40:24.588436+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:14:29.219527
License: Public Domain

ON MOTION FOR REHEARING
GRAVES, Presiding Judge.
In his motion for rehearing appellant presents two propositions upon which he requests a reversal hereof, the first being set forth in the original opinion and based upon the fact that in the beginning of this cause the appellant was arraigned before the court, and according to the records, on his arraignment he pleaded guilty. The testimony evidences the fact that appellant appeared in person in open court and his counsel was also present, and after both parties had announced ready for trial, the defendant having theretofore been duly arraigned and having pleaded guilty to the indictment, thereupon he was admonished by the court of the consequences of his plea, and he persisted in pleading guilty, and the said plea was entered of record herein as the plea of the defendant.
It is also shown that thereafter the appellant took the stand in his own behalf and testified, among other things, that as he was driving out on the public highway from Mineral Wells to *109Temple, something became the matter with his car which he had borrowed from a friend; that while the engine would run the car would not do so; that while looking at the car and trying to remedy the trouble, two men drove up who were going in another direction. They stopped and asked him what was the matter with the car. They eventually found that the car would not run and offered him a ride with them. He rode with them for a short distance. He had in his pocket a pistol which he offered to sell to the men. They looked at it but failed to buy the same. Desiring to relieve himself, they stopped the car and he walked around to the back thereof to urinate and while there he heard three shots. He looked up and saw that one of the men in the car had shot the other soldier and killed him; that he then got back in the car. Eventually he and the remaining soldier drove into a pasture a short distance away, pulled the dead man out and left him there; that he and the driver of the car then turned around and started back to Temple; that they went through different towns, the stranger driving the car, until they got close to Temple. Appellant then took the wheel and they both drove into Temple. He let the soldier out on Sixth Street at Temple and was to meet him there again in 10 or 15 minutes to pick him up; that when he came back two officers approached him and interrogated him; that he again requested to be allowed to urinate; that one of the officers took him a short distance away, and he escaped from him and went to Bartlett, Texas, where he stayed for a period of time, having changed his clothes at his home in Temple. On the third or fourth day thereafter he was apprehended at Bartlett and brought back. He then made a full confession, containing many pages, relative to the killing, which statement was entirely different from the one that he made upon the stand. He did testitfy that he attempted to wipe some of the blood out of the car in which he was apprehended at Temple, but that he had not been successful in cleaning it.
In the appellant’s own statement on the stand, he never approached making himself a principal in this matter; he merely reaches the position of an accessory to the crime, if reached at all. He could not be convicted on the indictment herein under facts which showed only that he was an accessory.
The complaint of the appellant in this motion occurred in the following manner: After appellant had testified to all these facts and had rested his case, the court said:
*110“THE COURT: Marvin, stand up just a minute. When the
indictment was presented in this Court yesterday morning you entered a plea of guilty to the charge contained herein.
“MARVIN RAYSON: Yes, sir.
“THE COURT: You have taken the witness stand and said that you did not kill Corporal Layton; that some other person did the act with which you are charged. Do you still persist in your plea of guilty?
“MARVIN RAYSON: I didn’t understand that part.
“THE COURT: I say, do you still persist in your plea of guilty?
“MARVIN RAYSON: Guilty and ask for the mercy of the Court.
“THE COURT: Did you kill the man or did somebody else kill him?
“MARVIN RAYSON: I didn’t kill him.
“THE COURT: All right. You may sit down. I withdraw this man’s plea of guilty and I will enter a plea for him of not guilty. You may proceed, Mr. District Attorney.”
It is evident from the testimony that the court withdrew the appellant’s plea of guilty and pleaded not guilty for him. It is contended by the appellant in this motion that this proceeding upon the part of the court had great weight in causing the jury to fix the death penalty herein because it withdrew therefrom his effort to candidly stand before them and plead guilty to this offense and request of them the mercy of the court. We confess that we are unable to see any other procedure that the court could have followed, especially after the appellant’s testimony before the jury repeatedly denied that he killed the deceased or that he had anything to do with the killing. We are indebted to the wonderful brief and argument presented to us by the court-appointed counsel who represented the appellant on this appeal only. We are convinced that appellant’s appointed counsel attempted, to the best of his ability and experience, to represent him throughout the trial.
Believing the proper disposition of the case to have been made in the original opinion, the motion for rehearing is therefore overruled.