Court Opinion

ID: 9647691
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 13:47:21.227997+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:11:52.109685
License: Public Domain

OPINION ON APPELLANT’S MOTION FOR REHEARING
DICE, Judge.
We have again reviewed the record in light of appellant’s motion for rehearing, and remain convinced that the evidence of extraneous offenses was admissible under the exceptions stated to the general rule.
In his motion, appellant complains of our failure to pass upon his point of error # 5, wherein he urged as error the court’s refusal to give his requested charge on punishment.
The court, in his charge, instructed the jury that if they assessed punishment for not more than ten years and found that appellant had never been convicted of a felony in this state or any other state they could in their discretion recommend probation and so state in their verdict.
Appellant’s requested charge, which the court refused, would have instructed the jury that if probation were granted by the jury, the court, if he found appellant eligible, would give him a probated sentence upon the conditions as set out in Sec. 6 of Art. 42.12, subd. B, V.A.C.C.P.
Such requested charge to the jury that if they recommended probation the court would give appellant a probated sentence upon the conditions set out in Sec. 6 of Art. 42.12, subd. B, supra, was incorrect, in view of that provision in Sec. 3a of Art. 42.12, subd. B, supra, which reads
“If probation is granted by the jury the court may impose only those conditions which are set forth in Section 6 hereof.”
Under this provision of the statute, the conditions of probation which the court may impose when probation is recommended by the jury are limited to, but do not necessarily include, all those enumerated in Sec. 6 of the statute.
While it would have been proper for the court to have instructed the jury that if they recommended probation, the court, in granting probation, could impose only the conditions — but not necessarily all— set forth in Sec. 6 of the statute, we are unable to agree that such failure was harmful to appellant and that it calls for a reversal of the conviction.
The motion for rehearing is overruled.