Ex Parte Brown

4 Citing cases

  1. Rhodes v. State

    240 S.W.3d 882 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007)   Cited 104 times
    Holding that defendant cannot attack as illegal agreed judgment that was too lenient

    Id. at 607-08; Barker v. State, 169 Tex. Crim. 277, 278-79, 334 S.W.2d 182, 183-84 (1960).Rhodes v. State, 560 S.W.2d 665, 667 (Tex.Crim.App. 1978) (quoting Barker, 169 Tex. Crim. at 279, 334 S.W.2d at 184)("A judgment or sentence containing an irregularity which may be reformed on appeal or by nunc pro tunc entry is not void, and may not be collaterally attacked."); Smothermon v. State, 383 S.W.2d 929, 931 (Tex.Crim.App. 1964)("could have been reformed in a proper proceeding"); Ex parte Brown, 145 Tex.Crim. 39, 42, 165 S.W.2d 718, 720 (1942)("upon the original appeal of this case, it could have been reformed").Rhodes, 560 S.W.2d at 667.

  2. Johnson v. State

    478 S.W.2d 442 (Tex. Crim. App. 1972)   Cited 14 times

    The statement of facts reflects that the trial court found the enhancement allegations to be true, and assessed punishment at confinement for life. The docket sheet also reflects that the court assessed punishment at life. Where this Court has the necessary data and evidence before it for reformation, the judgment may be reformed on appeal. Vasquez v. State, 477 S.W.2d 629 (Tex.Cr.App., delivered February 16, 1972); Golden v. State, 434 S.W.2d 870 (Tex.Cr.App. 1968); Brim v. State, 379 S.W.2d 664 (Tex.Cr.App. 1964); Ex parte Brown, 145 Tex.Crim. 39, 165 S.W.2d 718 (1942); Kuhn v. State, 142 Tex.Crim. R., 151 S.W.2d 208 (1941); Evans v. State, 141 Tex.Crim. R., 147 S.W.2d 794 (1941); see also, Lowe v. State, 427 S.W.2d 867 (Tex.Cr.App. 1968). Likewise, this Court may reform a sentence so as to conform with the judgment.

  3. Coleman v. State

    No. 11-02-00089-CR (Tex. App. Jan. 16, 2003)

    Appellant's Collateral Attack of the Prior Convictions Appellant's burden in the trial court was to demonstrate that the prior convictions were void. Acosta v. State, 650 S.W.2d 827, 829 (Tex.Cr.App. 1983); Ex parte Brown, 165 S.W.2d 718, 720 (Tex.Cr.App. 1942); Egger v. State, 62 S.W.3d 221, 224 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 2001, no pet'n); Battle v. State, 989 S.W.2d 840, 841 (Tex.App.-Texarkana 1999, no pet'n). To meet this burden, appellant had to show that a jurisdictional defect or denial of a fundamental or constitutional right occurred in the prior misdemeanor causes.

  4. Pitts v. State

    742 S.W.2d 420 (Tex. App. 1987)   Cited 13 times
    Concluding evidence of significant disfigurement was sufficient where victim suffered five facial fractures necessitating several surgeries to repair damage

    A verdict should receive a liberal construction, and it is sufficient if the jury's intention can be ascertained from the verdict itself, or in connection with the court's charge. Ex Parte Brown, 145 Tex.Crim. 39, 165 S.W.2d 718, 720 (1942); Smart v. State, 144 Tex.Crim. 93, 161 S.W.2d 97, 99 (1942). It is true that the jury verdict read literally only finds that the appellant had been previously convicted of two felonies.