Court Opinion

ID: 9646545
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 13:02:31.613777+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:11:39.218124
License: Public Domain

ON STATE’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A MOTION FOR REHEARING
DOUGLAS, Judge.
The original opinion still leaves us approving a punishment not authorized by law. In the first trial, a jury assessed punishment on each count at one year and a fine of $400, probated. The trial court later ordered a new trial. The second jury assessed a proper punishment. A one-year probated sentence for the offenses is not permitted under the Code.
The trial court should not have received the first verdict. Had appellant appealed, this Court would have had no choice but to reverse and remand for a new trial. Ellison v. State, 432 S.W.2d 955 (Tex.Cr.App.1968); Brumfield v. State, 445 S.W.2d 732 (Tex.Cr.App.1969). All the trial court did was what this Court would have been forced to do on appeal.
In Miller v. State, 472 S.W.2d 269 (Tex.Cr.App.1971), the trial court first sentenced the defendant to 99 years and, later, he assessed punishment at 40 years. This Court upheld that action stating that to remand would be “a useless act.” “The trial judge had already done that which he would be expected to do on remand.” Analogously, the trial judge here has done the same thing: granted a new trial when he would have had to do so on remand.
Leave to file a motion for rehearing should be granted.