Court Opinion

ID: 9685055
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 14:21:58.565632+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:18:02.012092
License: Public Domain

ON MOTION FOR REHEARING.
DAVIDSON, Judge.
Appellant insists that the bill of exception as prepared by the trial court should not be considered.
In disposing of this case originally, we did not do so upon the trial court’s bill of exception but rather upon the matters shown in appellant’s bill of exception as presented by the bystanders’ bill of exception. In doing so, we reached the conclusion that the mere fact that a trial judge, while a practicing attorney, had advised the appellant and deceased relative to a partnership contract between them did not constitute a disqualification such as would preclude the attorney, after becoming a judge, to sit as the trial judge in the trial of a murder case when one of the parties to the contract was charged with killing the other and there was no showing in the case that the killing arose or resulted out of that contract or advice given. Ex Parte Largent, 144 Tex. Cr. R. 592, 162 S. W. 2d 419-426.
We note that in passing sentence upon the appellant the trial court failed to apply the provisions of the indeterminate sentence law (Art. 775, C. C. P.) Tucker v. State, 136 Tex. Cr. 586, 127 S. W. 2d 300. Accordingly the sentence is now reformed so as to fix appellant’s punishment at not less than two nor more than twenty-five years’ confinement in the penitentiary.
We remain convinced that, under the facts here presented, Judge Erisman was not disqualified to sit as the trial judge.
The motion for rehearing is overruled.
Opinion approved by the court.