Court Opinion

ID: 9773683
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 17:54:03.568043+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:31:56.134366
License: Public Domain

OPINION ON THE APPELLANT’S MOTION FOR REHEARING
DALLY, Commissioner.
The Appellant’s Motion for Leave to File the Motion for Rehearing was granted. The appellant complained that due consideration was not given to the following ground of error raised in his appellate brief filed in the trial court.
“The failure of the trial court to inquire of the appellant if he had anything to say in his own behalf prior to sentencing rendered the sentence illegal.”
It is the appellant’s contention that Article 42.07,1 Vernon’s Ann.C.C.P. does not *618replace the common law right of allocution; that is, the opportunity for a defendant to present his personal plea to the Court in mitigation of punishment before sentence is imposed.2 He argues that therefore Article 1.27, V.A.C.C.P.3 would give him the right to common law allocu-on.
The appellant admits that he did not raise this contention before the trial court prior to the imposition of sentence. We therefore find that nothing is presented for review. See Graham v. State, 498 S.W.2d 197 (Tex.Cr.App.1973); Valdez v. State, 479 S.W.2d 927 (Tex.Cr.App.1972); Johnson v. State, 14 Tex.Cr.R. 306 (1883).
The appellant’s motion for rehearing is overruled.
Opinion approved by the Court.

. Article 42.07, Y.A.C.C.P. provides:
“Before pronouncing sentence, the defendant shall be asked whether he has anything to say why the sentence should not be pronounced against him. The only reasons which can be shown, on account of which sentence cannot be pronounced, are:
“1. That the defendant has received a pardon from the proper authority, on the presentation of which, legally authenticated, he shall be discharged.
“2. That the defendant is insane; and if sufficient proof be shown to satisfy the court that the allegation is well-founded, no sen-508 S.W.2d — 39Vz fence shall be pronounced. Where there is sufficient time left, a jury may be impaneled to try the issue. Where insufficient time does not remain, the court shall order the defendant to be confined safely until the next term of the court, and shall then cause a jury to be impaneled to try such issue;
“3. Where there has not been a motion for a new trial or a motion in arrest of judgment made, the defendant may answer that he has good grounds for either or both of these motions and either or both motions may be immediately entered and disposed of, although more than ten days may have *618elapsed since the rendition of the verdict; and
“4. When a person who has been convicted escapes after conviction and before sentence and an individual supposed to be the same has been arrested he may before sentence is pronounced, deny that he is the person convicted, and an issue be accordingly tried before a jury as to his identity.”

. Some of the history of common law allocution is recited in Green v. United States, 365 U.S. 301, 81 S.Ct. 653, 5 L.Ed.2d 670 (1961).

. Article 1.27, V.A.C.C.P. provides:
“If this Code fails to provide a rule of procedure in any particular state of case which may arise, the rules of the common law shall be applied and govern.”