Harris v. State, 670 S.W.2d 284 (Tex. App. 1983). · Go Syfert
Search
Harris v. State, 670 S.W.2d 284 (Tex. App. 1983). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
G Cite
cited 2× by 1 distinct case, last quoted 2002 · …does not allow for a determination of the substantive rights of involved parties. at p. 284 ⚠ not in text
23 citation events (15 in the last 25 years) across 3 distinct courts.
Treatment trajectory · 1991 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1991 2008 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 18 distinct citers. How cited ↗
cited Cited as authority (rule) Evan Michael Szarf v. the State of Texas
Tex. App. · 2023 · confidence medium
Harris v. State, 670 S.W.2d 284, 285 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1983, no pet.).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Jonathan Russell Shook v. the State of Texas
Tex. App. · 2022 · confidence medium
When a trial court assesses an unauthorized or illegal fine, we may modify the judgment “by striking the requirement . . . appellant pay a fine as part of his punishment.” Harris v. State, 670 S.W.2d 284, 285 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1983, no writ); see also TEX.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Gary Lynn Ramsey v. the State of Texas
Tex. App. · 2021 · confidence medium
When a trial court assesses an unauthorized or illegal fine, we may modify the judgment “by striking the requirement . . . appellant pay a fine as a part of his punishment.” Harris v. State, 670 S.W.2d 284, 285 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1983, no writ); see also TEX.
cited Cited as authority (rule) Jose Guadalupe Carmona v. State
Tex. App. · 2020 · confidence medium
Harris v. State, 670 S.W.2d 284, 285 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1983, no pet.).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) John Carpenter v. State
Tex. App. · 2016 · confidence medium
CONCLUSION When a trial court assesses an unauthorized or illegal fine, we may modify the judgment “by striking the requirement . . . appellant pay a fine as part of his punishment.” Harris v. State, 670 S.W.2d 284, 285 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1983, no writ); see also Mizell, 119 S.W.3d at 806 (“A trial or appellate court which otherwise has jurisdiction over a criminal conviction may always notice and correct an illegal sentence.”); TEX.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Timothy O'Reilly v. State
Tex. App. · 2016 · confidence medium
See Ex parte Pena, 71 S.W.3d 336 , 336 n. 2 (Tex.Crim.App.2002) (“had the jury assessed Mr. Pena a $20,000 fine, that sentence would be void and illegal because Texas statutes only permit a maximum of a $10,000 fíne”); Ex parte Hernandez, 698 S.W.2d 670, 670-71 (Tex.Crim.App.1985) (sentence of fine void because act in effect at time of sentencing did not authorize fine); Harris v. State, 670 S.W.2d 284, 286 (Tex.App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1983, no pet.) (although not raised by defendant, court of appeals can take notice of illegal sentence which exceeds statutory maximum and “has the po…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Timothy O'Reilly v. State
Tex. App. · 2016 · confidence medium
App. 1985) (sentence of fine void because act in effect at time of sentencing did not authorize fine); Harris v. State, 670 S.W.2d 284, 285 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1983, no pet.) (although not raised by defendant, court of appeals can take notice of illegal sentence which exceeds statutory maximum and “has the power to reform and correct judgments and hereby does so by striking the requirement that appellant pay a fine as part of his punishment in this case”); Figueroa v. State, No. 01-11-01115-CR, 2013 WL 177409 , at *10 (Tex. App.— Houston [1st Dist.] Jan. 17, 2013, no pet.) (…
cited Cited as authority (rule) Darrell Lynn Harvey v. State
Tex. App. · 2005 · confidence medium
Harris v. State , 670 S.W.2d 284, 285 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1983, no pet.).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Mizell, Charles W., Jr.
Tex. Crim. App. · 2003 · confidence medium
See, e.g., Simmons v. State , 156 Tex. Crim. 601, 602 , 245 S.W.2d 254, 255 (1952) (noting that "no court in this state could assess a punishment that the law does not authorize"); Rutherford v. State , 79 Tex. Crim. 605, 605 , 187 S.W. 481, 481 (1916) (reversing conviction because sentence was below the statutory minimum which required imposition of both a fine and imprisonment and defendant was assessed only a fine); Harris v. State , 670 S.W.2d 284, 285 (Tex. App.-Houston [1 st Dist.] 1983, no pet.) (Although not raised by defendant, court of appeals can take notice of illegal sentence whic…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Mizell v. State (2×)
Tex. Crim. App. · 2003 · confidence medium
Dawson, Texas Practice: Criminal Practice and Procedure § 43.234, at 539-40 (2001) (discussing and distinguishing between sentences that are "wrong" and those which the State may appeal as "illegal"). [17] Carter v. State, 656 S.W.2d 468, 469 (Tex. Crim.App.1983) (adopting reasoning and result of court of appeals which had held that "an appellate court does not need enabling legislation to set aside a void judgment" and concluding that "[b]ecause a void judgment is a nullity, we have inherent power to so declare it regardless of the technical requirements of an appeal") (quoting Carter v. Sta…
cited Cited as authority (rule) In Re GAT
Tex. App. · 2000 · confidence medium
See Perry, 703 S.W.2d at 670 ; Harris v. State, 670 S.W.2d 284, 285 (Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1983, no pet.).
cited Cited as authority (rule) In re G.A.T.
Tex. App. · 2000 · confidence medium
See Perry, 703 S.W.2d at 670 ; Harris v. State, 670 S.W.2d 284, 285 (Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1983, no pet.).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Joseph v. State
Tex. App. · 1999 · confidence medium
See also Williams v. State, 911 S.W.2d 788, 791 (Tex.App.—San Antonio 1995, no pet.) (opinion on rehearing); Harris v. State, 670 S.W.2d 284, 285 (Tex.App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1983, no pet.) (court of appeals had power to reform judgment to delete unauthorized fine though not requested to do so on appeal).
cited Cited as authority (rule) State v. Baize
Tex. App. · 1997 · confidence medium
Id. at 285 (emphasis added).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Frank Ivy v. State
Tex. App. · 1991 · confidence medium
Rivera v. State, 716 S.W.2d 68, 71 (Tex. App. 1986, pet ref'd); Harris v. State, 670 S.W.2d 284, 285 (Tex. App. 1983, no pet.).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Asberry v. State
Tex. App. · 1991 · confidence medium
Harris v. State, 670 S.W.2d 284, 285 (Tex.App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1983, no pet.).
discussed Cited "see" Garcia v. State
Tex. App. · 2018 · signal: see · confidence high
"A trial or appellate court which otherwise has jurisdiction over a criminal conviction may always notice and correct an illegal sentence." Id. at 806 ; see Harris v. State , 670 S.W.2d 284 , 285 (Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1983, no pet.) (no claim of illegal sentence raised; however, the court reformed an illegal sentence).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Maiz v. Virani (2×)
5th Cir. · 2002 · signal: see also · confidence medium
In pertinent part, we stated: A proceeding to determine whether a transaction is fraudulent or otherwise to determine property rights of the parties is improper under the turnover statute, for the statute “does not allow for a determination of the substantive rights of involved parties.” Republic Ins., 825 S.W.2d at 783; see also United Bank Metro, 670 S.W.2d at 284.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Felix Jerome HARRIS, Appellant,
v.
the STATE of Texas, Appellee
01-820429-CR.
Court of Appeals of Texas.
Jun 30, 1983.
670 S.W.2d 284
Melba Price, Houston, for appellant., Calvin Hartman, Houston, for appellee.
Cohen, Bass, Smith.
Cited by 18 opinions  |  Published

OPINION

COHEN, Justice.

Appellant was convicted of aggravated rape after a trial by jury. Upon his plea of true to an allegation of one prior conviction alleged for enhancement, the jury assessed his punishment at life imprisonment and a $10,000 fine.

Appellant asserts in his sole ground of error that the evidence was insufficient to identify him as the offender. It is undisputed that the complaining witness was the victim of an aggravated rape at the time and place and in the manner alleged in the indictment. Appellant has cited no constitutional provisions, statutes or judicial decisions in support of the ground of error. Although he complains of a suggestive lineup, there was no objection or motion to suppress on this basis made in the district court. Any error was, therefore, waived. Archie v. State, 615 S.W.2d 762, 764 (Tex. Cr.App.1981); Cano v. State, 614 S.W.2d 578, 579 (Tex.Cr.App.1981).

In reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict. Rohlfing v. State, 612 S.W.2d 598, 600 (Tex.Cr.App.1981); Banks v. State, 510 S.W.2d 592, 595 (Tex.Cr.App.1974). The complainant positively identified the appellant, both in court and at a pretrial lineup and his appearance was consistent with her description given to police immediately after the offense and at all times thereafter. This constitutes sufficient evidence that the appellant was the offender. Garcia v. State, 563 S.W.2d 925 (Tex.Cr.App.1978); Ward v. State, 505 S.W.2d 832 (Tex.Cr.App.1974); Lee v. State, 455 S.W.2d 316 (Tex.Cr.App.1970). Appellant’s complaints do not rise to the level of insufficient evidence, but constitute, at most, insignificant discrepancies in the face of overwhelming, uncontra-dicted evidence of guilt. Ground of error one is overruled.

Although not raised in appellant’s brief, we observe that the punishment assessed exceeded the statutory maximum. Appellant was on trial for a first-degree felony, aggravated rape, enhanced by an allegation of one prior felony conviction. The appropriate penalty range was, therefore, from fifteen years to life imprisonment. Tex.Penal Code Ann. § 12.42(c) (Vernon 1974). The jury charge, however, authorized the jury to assess a fine of up to $10,000 as punishment, in addition to any term of imprisonment, and the jury imposed a sentence of life imprisonment and a $10,000 fine. No fine was authorized by § 12.42(c). This constitutes an illegal sentence which cannot be enforced; however, this court has the power to reform and correct judgments and hereby does so by striking the requirement that appellant pay a fine as part of his punishment in this case. Tex.Code Crim.Pro.Ann. art. 44.24(b) (Vernon 1982). Bogany v. State, 646 S.W.2d 663, 664-65 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1983); Adams v. State, 642[*286] S.W.2d 211 (Tex.App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1982).-

The judgment, as reformed, is affirmed.