TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Edwards v. State

Joe Edwards v. State

Edwards v. State, 219 S.W.2d 1022 (Tex. Crim. App. 1949)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · State Highest Courts
Decided
May 4, 1949
Docket
No. 24364
Judges
Davidson
Citations
219 S.W.2d 1022153 Tex. Crim. 3011949 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 1163

Opinion of the Court — Davidson

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

DAVIDSON, Judge.

Appellant waived a trial by jury, and entered his plea of guilty to the crime of cattle theft.

The trial court’s order and adjudication upon the plea, as contained in the judgment of conviction, reads as follows:

“it is therefore, considered, ordered and ad judged by the Court that the Defendant, Joe Edwards, is guilty of the offense of Theft of Cattle, as confessed by the Defendant in the Defendant’s plea of guilty herein made to the Court, and that the said Defendant be punished by confinement in the Penitentiary of the State of Texas for a term of not less than Two nor more than Three years, and that the State of Texas do have and recover of the said Defendant all costs in this prosecution expended, for which execution may issue.”

The defect in such judgment lies in the fact that no specific punishment is reflected therein. The order fixing appellant’s punishment at not less than two nor more than three years’ confinement in the penitentiary fixes neither term as the punishment assessed. It is, therefore, neither definite nor certain. The judgment of the trial court, upon a plea of guilty before the court in a felony case, must fix a penalty that is definite and certain. Ex Parte Traxler, 147 Tex. Cr. R. 661 , 184 S. W. (2d) 286 .

The judgment in this case is void.

We have no alternative but to reverse the judgment and remand the case for a new trial. It is so ordered.

Opinion approved by the Court.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

Cited by 14 cases

View all citing references →
1949: 11950: 51953: 21955: 11956: 11957: 11958: 11964: 11984: 119492026peak 1950 · 5

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Ex Parte Wingfield282 S.W.2d 219 (Tex. Crim. App. 1955)
  2. State ex rel. Nicholson v. Boles134 S.E.2d 576 (W. Va. 1964)
  3. Ex Parte East225 S.W.2d 833 (Tex. Crim. App. 1950)
  4. Thompson v. State226 S.W.2d 872 (Tex. Crim. App. 1950)
  5. Ex Parte Church292 S.W.2d 120 (Tex. Crim. App. 1956)
  6. Ex Parte Frazier301 S.W.2d 655 (Tex. Crim. App. 1957)

Most recent

  1. Clemons v. State676 S.W.2d 356 (Tex. Crim. App. 1984) · Dissent
  2. State ex rel. Nicholson v. Boles134 S.E.2d 576 (W. Va. 1964)
  3. Villarreal v. State317 S.W.2d 531 (Tex. Crim. App. 1958)
  4. Ex Parte Frazier301 S.W.2d 655 (Tex. Crim. App. 1957)
  5. Ex Parte Church292 S.W.2d 120 (Tex. Crim. App. 1956)
  6. Ex Parte Wingfield282 S.W.2d 219 (Tex. Crim. App. 1955)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 1

DepthCaseCited by
Ex Parte Traxler, 184 S.W.2d 286 (Tex. Crim. App. 1944) 46

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list