From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Grayson v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas
Dec 31, 1966
409 S.W.2d 850 (Tex. Crim. App. 1966)

Opinion


409 S.W.2d 850 (Tex.Crim.App. 1966) Milton GRAYSON, Jr., Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee. No. 39851. Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas. December 31, 1966

Kenneth W. Gentry, Amarillo, for appellant.

Dee D. Miller, Dist. Atty., John W. Broadfoot, Asst. Dist. Atty., Amarillo, Leon B. Douglas, State's Atty., Austin, for the State.

OPINION ON APPELLANT'S MOTION FOR REHEARING

MORRISON, Presiding Judge.

Upon consideration of appellant's motion for rehearing the original opinions are withdrawn and the following substituted in lieu thereof.

The offense is burglary; the punishment, ten years.

Trial was had and notice of appeal was given on February 16, 1966. Appellant first contends that his written confession which was witnessed by Justice of the Peace Roberts was not admissible, because it was not also witnessed by someone other than a peace officer as is required by Sec. 3 of Article 38.22(a), Vernon's Ann.C.C.P. (1965). Such section deals with oral confessions and needs not be considered here.

He further contends that the trial court's resolution of disputed facts was not sufficient under our holding in Lopez v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 384 S.W.2d 345. His findings contained the recitation that appellant was not refused the assistance of counsel and that he freely and voluntarily made the statement. We deem these findings sufficient.

The judgment is affirmed and appellant's motion for rehearing is overruled.


Summaries of

Grayson v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas
Dec 31, 1966
409 S.W.2d 850 (Tex. Crim. App. 1966)
Case details for

Grayson v. State

Case Details

Full title:Milton GRAYSON, Jr., Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.

Court:Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas

Date published: Dec 31, 1966

Citations

409 S.W.2d 850 (Tex. Crim. App. 1966)

Citing Cases

Jones v. State

While it would have been better practice to have made an express finding as to waiver, we conclude that the…