Court Opinion

ID: 9762197
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 02:15:32.744813+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:29:31.776204
License: Public Domain

ONION, Presiding Judge
(concurring).
The appeal results from a conviction for possession of a dangerous drug: “to wit: Barbiturate.” The punishment was assessed by the jury at confinement in the county jail for two years and a fine of $3,000.00.
Initially, appellant contends the trial court erred in denying appellant’s motion for change of venue claiming that his motion was not controverted by the State. He relies, among other authorities, upon Wall v. State, 417 S.W.2d 59, 63 (Tex.Cr.App.1967), and Cox v. State, 90 Tex.Cr.R. 106, 234 S.W. 72, 73 (1921).
The complaint and information alleged the offense charged occurred “on or about July 16, 1970.” Such instruments were filed on July 20, 1970. After the case had been passed three times at appellant’s request, he filed the motion for change of venue in question on January 11, 1971. The cause had been set for trial on the following day. On that date, January 12, 1971, the appellant filed his first motion for continuance based on the fact that in addition to his two retained counsel, he was now represented by an out-of-county lawyer-legislator and that he was entitled to a continuance pursuant to Article 2168a, Vernon’s Ann.Civ.St, since the Legislature was currently in session or would be within thirty days of such date. On the same date, the court granted such motion and set the case for trial on July 12, 1971. On that date, the court overruled the motion for change of venue in this misdemeanor case. The State’s brief confesses no controverting affidavits were filed, but the record fails to reflect that the appellant did not waive the same or whether evidence was heard on the motion without objection. A transcription of the court reporter’s notes is not in the record before us. If the appellant waived controverting affidavits on the part of the State, or if the court heard evidence before deciding the issue, the rule relied upon by the appellant has no application. Cox v. State, supra.
*576In absence of a transcription of the court reporter’s notes, an agreed statement of facts, a stipulation, etc., we are unable to conclude that the rule relied upon by the appellant should be applied.
Further, after the motion for change of venue was overruled, the appellant then entered a plea of guilty to the instant misdemeanor charge before a jury and filed his motion for probation.
Under the circumstances, we need not decide whether the appellant waived any error as to the failure to change venue when he subsequently entered a plea of guilty. And I would not so decide in this case.
For the reasons stated, I concur.
MORRISON, J., joins in this concurrence.