Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

515 S.W.2d 920

Gonzales v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas

Decided November 27, 1974

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · decided 1974-11-27

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

““The Appellant waived his right to be personally present at the trial.””

quoted by 1 later decision, including Wortham v. State

Relies on Diaz v. United States · Taylor v. United States · 172 Tex. Crim. 122 - Reed v. State

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1974-11-27

How this case has been cited

Cited by 14 later decisions — most recently July 2018

14 state decisions

7019741980199020002010decided

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

DALLY, Commissioner.

¶2 The conviction is for murder; the punishment, imprisonment for forty years. The appellant complains in two grounds of error that he was tried and sentenced in absentia.

¶3 The appellant who was free on bail was present in court during the selection of the jury and entered a plea of not guilty. He failed to appear in court the next morning. The court proceeded with the trial. The jury found appellant guilty. A punishment hearing was held, and the court assessed punishment. The appellant was present in court when he was sentenced. The trial court made an undisputed finding that the appellant had voluntarily absented himself from the trial after he *921 pleaded not guilty to the indictment. When a defendant voluntarily absents himself after entering a plea to the indictment the trial may proceed to its conclusion. Arts. 33.03 and 37.06, Vernon’s Ann.C.C.P. The appellant waived his right to be personally present at the trial. The court did not err in proceeding with the trial. Reed v. State, 172 Tex.Cr.R. 122, 353 S.W.2d 850 (Tex.Cr.App.1962); Johnston v. State, 477 S.W.2d 891 (Tex.Cr.App.1972); Diaz v. United States, 223 U.S. 442, 32 S.Ct. 250, 56 L.Ed. 500 (1912); Taylor v. United States, 414 U.S. 17, 94 S.Ct. 194, 38 L.Ed.2d 174 (1973); cf. Rule 43, Fed.Rules Crim.Proc.

¶4 The judgment is affirmed.

/515/sw2d/920 · .json · Public domain