Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

470 S.W.2d 683

Hammond v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas

Decided September 16, 1971

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · decided 1971-09-16

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“"No person can be convicted of a felony except upon the verdict of a jury duly rendered and recorded, unless in felony cases less than capital, the defendant, upon entering a plea, has in open court in person waived his right of trial by jury in writing in accordance with Articles 1.13 and 1.14; provided, however, that it shall be necessary for the state to introduce evidence into the record showing the guilt of the defendant and said evidence shall be accepted by the court as the basis for its judgment and in no event shall a person charged be convicted upon his plea without sufficient evidence to support the same. The evidence may be stipulated if the defendant in such case consents in writing, in open court, to waive the appearance, confrontation, and cross-examination of witnesses, and further consents either to an oral stipulation of the evidence and testimony or to the introduction of testimony by affidavits, written statements of witnesses, and any other documentary evidence in support of the judgment of the court. Such waiver and consent must be approved by the court in writing, and be filed in the file of the papers of the cause.””

quoted by 1 later decision, including Morris v. State

Relies on Bell v. State

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1971-09-16

How this case has been cited

Cited by 7 later decisions — most recently July 2009

7 state decisions

401971198019902000decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1 OPINION

ODOM, Judge.

¶2 The offenses in Cause Numbers 44,096 and 44,097 are unlawful possession of a narcotic drug, to-wit: Heroin; and in Cause Numbers 44,098 and 44,099 are unlawful sale of a narcotic drug, to-wit: Heroin. The punishment was assessed by the court in each case at ten years.

¶3 The sole ground of error in each of the cases is that the evidence is insufficient to support the conviction and that the state failed to produce any evidence to support appellant’s plea of guilty.

¶4 The appellant was represented by counsel of her own choice. Article 1.15 Vernon’s Ann.C.C.P. was complied with, as the record reflects that in each case appellant waived her right of a trial by jury in writing. Further, the appellant consented in writing to waive the appearance, confrontation, cross-examination of witnesses, and consented to the introduction of testimony by affidavits, written statements of witnesses and other documentary evidence. The record further reflects that after the waivers and consents were approved by the court, the state introduced the stipulated testimony of witnesses in each of the cases which established all elements of the offense charged. See Bell v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 455 S.W.2d 230.

¶5 Appellant’s ground of error in each cause is overruled.

¶6 The judgments are affirmed.

/470/sw2d/683 · .json · Public domain