Court Opinion

ID: 9642940
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 18:13:11.553691+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:10:54.829368
License: Public Domain

ON APPELLANT’S MOTION FOR REHEARING
McDonald, judge.
Due to appellant’s vigorous brief on motion for rehearing, and his reliance on White v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 59, 83 S.Ct. 1050, 10 L.Ed.2d 193, we feel it desirable to further clarify our position in distinguishing the instant case. In the White case it was pointed out that the “preliminary hearing” under Maryland law was as “critical” a stage as arraignment under Alabama law, citing Hamilton v. Alabama, 368 U.S. 52, 82 S.Ct. 157, 7 L.Ed.2d 114. In the Hamilton case it was stated that under Alabama law arraignment is a critical stage in a criminal proceeding in that, “ * * * the defense of insanity must be pleaded * * * or the opportunity is lost.” Also, “[p]leas in abatement must also be made at the time of arraignment,” and further, “It is then that motions to quash based on systematic exclusion of one race from grand juries- *. * *, or on the ground that the graqd jury was otherwise improperly drawn * ■ * *, must be made.”
The examining trial in Texas is not such a “critical stage” in criminal proceedings as it is under the holdings above cited and quoted. As originally' set forth in our opinion in this cause, “An examining trial, under Arts. 245 to 266, V.A.C.C.P. is for the purpose of determining whether the defend*297ant is to be discharged, committed to jail, or admitted to bail.”
We remain convinced that this cause was correctly disposed of in our original opinion. Appellant’s motion for rehearing is overruled.