“It is well established that the fixing of penalties and the punishment for offenses under the penal laws of the State is within the exclusive domain of the Legislature . . . .”
How later courts described this case
- “It is well established that the fixing of penalties and the punishment for offenses under the penal laws of the State is within the exclusive domain of the Legislature . . . .”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
CLINTON, Judge,
concurring in part and dissenting in part.
That the trial court lacked authority to award “credit” on the sentence it imposed is amply shown by the majority opinion. However, it is obvious from the record that the “innovative sentencing” indulged in by the trial court was part and parcel of its deliberations and determination as to appropriate punishment, in the premises. Therefore, the “remedy” devised by the majority — reforming the sentence, awarding credit on its own and ordering applicant into custody to serve the sentence thus credited — infringes that power and authority vested in the trial court to assess a proper punishment and impose a lawful sentence. We cannot say that the trial court would do what the majority now does.
Accordingly, I would vacate the judgment and sentence and direct the trial court to conduct a fresh punishment hearing in Cause No. 40768, pursuant to Article 37.07, § 3(a) and (d), V.A.C.C.P.
I concur in its conclusions of law but dissent to the order of the Court.