stating that “this court is without authority to either pass sentence or reduce the Hartfield–Page 8 punishment assessed by a jury. And, while we may remand solely on the issue of punishment where punishment was originally assessed by the court, we may not do so where punishment was assessed by the jury.”
How later courts described this case
- stating that “this court is without authority to either pass sentence or reduce the Hartfield–Page 8 punishment assessed by a jury. And, while we may remand solely on the issue of punishment where punishment was originally assessed by the court, we may not do so where punishment was assessed by the jury.”
- stating that “this court is without authority to either pass sentence or reduce the punishment assessed by a jury. And, while we may remand solely on the issue of punishment where punishment was originally assessed by the court, we may not do so where punishment was assessed by the jury.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
ON STATE’S MOTION FOR REHEARING
DALLY, Commissioner.
It has now been made to appear that upon the recommendation of the Board of Pardons and Paroles, a proclamation commuting the appellant’s sentence from death to life imprisonment was, on the 29th day of August, 1972, signed by the Honorable Preston Smith, Governor of this State. The State’s motion for rehearing is granted. Harris v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 485 S.W.2d 284 (1972) and Whan v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 485 S.W.2d 275 (1972).
The order of reversal is set aside and the judgment is affirmed.
Opinion approved by the Court.
ONION, P. J., dissents for reasons stated in his dissenting opinion in Whan v. State, supra.
DOUGLAS, J., not participating.