Court Opinion

ID: 9772752
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 17:28:55.037312+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:31:48.203854
License: Public Domain

DAVIDSON, Judge,
concurring.
I concur only in the disposition of this case — that is, that the writ of habeas corpus be denied.
This court is without jurisdiction, I have always insisted, to set aside a final judgment because of errors upon the trial of a case where no appeal was taken and the errors would render the judgment voidable, only. My views áre stated in my dissenting opinion in Ex parte Bush, No. 29,806, (page 259, this volume). 313 S.W. 2d 287.
Ths court has no authority to entertain the writ of habeas corpus and to review the evidence upon which the conviction was predicated.
The erroneous holding to which I here call attention is that a plea of guilty constitutes a judicial confession. Such is not true and to so hold destroys Art. 12, Vernon’s C.C.P., which requires proof of guilt upon a plea of guilty before the court.
If a plea of guilty was a judicial confession, then no reason or necessity would arise for the introduction of evidence “showing the guilt of the defendant,” as the statute requires.
*328Such would also be true if the accused could take the witness stand and admit his guilt and thus supply the evidence “showing the guilt of the defendant.”
The purpose and intent on the part of the legislature in the passage of Art. 12, Vernon’s C.C.P., was to prevent the state from convicting the accused, upon his plea of guilty and waiver of trial by jury, without proving his guilt, independent of any plea or testimony by the accused. Franklin v. State, 140 Texas Cr. Rep. 251, 144 S.W. 2d 581.
It may appear that the position I here take is not in keeping with that expressed by me in my dissenting opinion in Ex parte Clark, 164 Texas Cr. Rep 385, 299 S.W. 2d 128. Such, however, is not true. It was my position in that case that there was no evidence introduced showing the guilt of the accused, as required by Art. 12, V.A.C.C.P., because hearsay evidence had no probative value, and therefore the judgment of conviction was void as distinguished from voidable, only.
In the instant case evidence was introduced, but such was not sufficient to comply with the statute requiring that evidence be introduced “showing the guilt of the defendant” and thereby rendering the convicton voidable, only, and subject to be set aside upon appeal for that reason.