Court Opinion

ID: 9675519
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 04:56:15.688997+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:16:35.085477
License: Public Domain

CONCURRING OPINION
WOODLEY, Judge.
*505The case of Johnson v. State, 163 Texas Cr. Rep. 101, 289 S.W. 2d 249, recently decided, controls the question of appellant’s absence at the time his motion for new trial was heard and determined. There, as here, the conviction was for a misdemeanor and the question was not raised in the trial court by bill of exception, but was shown in the order overruling the motion for new trial.
Phillips v. State, 163 Texas Cr. Rep. 13, 288 S.W. 2d 775, cited by appellant, on the other hand, was a felony conviction. Phillips who was necessarily in custody pending the filing and disposition of his motion for new trial, complained by bill of exception which recited that he was in jail and did not waive his right to be present, and the trial court failed to rehear the motion for new trial, but pronounced sentence.
A motion for new trial cannot be made a substitute for or take the place of a bill of exception.
The taking of a bill of exception to the overruling of a motion for new trial or the recording of an exception in the order overruling it verifies only the fact that the- motion was presented to the court and overruled by him and that appellant excepted to that action of the court. 4 Texas Jur., p. 206, Sec. 148; Tindol v. State, 156 Texas Cr. Rep. 187, 239 S.W. 2d 396; Fowler v. State, 135 Texas Cr. Rep. 399, 120 S.W. 2d 1054.
The first of the nine grounds named in Art. 753 C.C.P. for the granting of a new trial is that the defendant has been tried in his absence.
A mere statement in a motion for new trial that the file mark on the information was improperly changed is not sufficient to bring the error before this court. Moss v. State, 39 Texas Cr. Rep. 3, 43 S.W. 983, rehearing overruled, 44 S.W. 832.
Under many authorities the right of the defendant to be present at all times during his trial is one that he may waive. If his presence may be waived, his absence is not such fundamental error as may be complained of for the first time in this court.