Court Opinion

ID: 9672752
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 03:59:34.835249+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:16:18.097594
License: Public Domain

ON APPELLANT’S MOTION FOR REHEARING
DICE, Judge.
Appellant insists that in view of the testimony in the record that she had never been in any kind of trouble and that she had a job, and her promise to make restitution to the bank of the money obtained in the forgery, the trial court abused his discretion in refusing to grant her a suspended sentence or a probated sence as recommended by the district attorney.
In Waldrop v. State, 129 Texas Cr. Rep. 134, 83 S.W. 2d 974, it.was held that in a trial before the court without a jury, the trial judge, in the exercise of his discretion, had the right to refuse a suspended sentence to the person found guilty of burglary even though such person offered testimony that he had never been convicted of a felony and of his previous good reputation as a law abiding citizen. In Brown v. State, 156 Texas Cr. Rep. 652, 245 S.W. 2d 497, it was held that where the issue of suspended sentence was submitted to a jury the question of whether or not the sentence should be suspended was within the jury’s discretion.
The right of parole or probation under the provisions of the Adult Probation and Parole Law, Art. 78ld, V.A.C.C.P., has *309been held to be a matter within the discretion of the trial court. Wilson v. State, 156 Texas Cr. Rep. 228, 240 S.W. 2d 774, and Ex Parte Pittman, 157 Texas Cr. Rep. 301, 248 S.W. 2d 159.
We find nothing in the record in the present cause which shows an abuse of judicial discretion on the part of the trial judge in refusing clemency to the appellant.
The motion for rehearing is overruled.
Opinion approved by the Court.