From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Tucker v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas
Dec 6, 1950
234 S.W.2d 877 (Tex. Crim. App. 1950)

Opinion

No. 24964.

December 6, 1950.

Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 2, Dallas County, Henry King, J.

Vincent W. Harris, Dallas, for appellant.

Will R. Wilson, Jr., Crim. Dist. Atty., Charles S. Potts, Asst. Dist. Atty., Dallas, George P. Blackburn, State's Atty., of Austin, for the State.


The primary offense charged is the noncapital felony of robbery by assault, together with an allegation of a prior conviction for burglary. The punishment is assessed at life imprisonment in the penitentiary, under the mandate of Art. 62, P.C.

The indictment, in all essentials, is the same as that set forth and discussed in the case of Farris v. Texas, Tex.Cr.App., 233 S.W.2d 856. Appellant here registers the same objections to the indictment as were there urged-i. e., that the allegation that the former conviction was for the offense of burglary is not sufficient to invoke the provisions of Art. 62, P.C.

The holding in the Farris case, supra, that the indictment was sufficient controls here.

There is no need to again set forth the reasons upon which the conclusion in the Farris case, supra, was reached. In the instant case, we adhere thereto.

The facts support the conviction.

No reversible error appearing, the judgment is affirmed.

Opinion approved by the court.


Summaries of

Tucker v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas
Dec 6, 1950
234 S.W.2d 877 (Tex. Crim. App. 1950)
Case details for

Tucker v. State

Case Details

Full title:TUCKER v. STATE

Court:Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas

Date published: Dec 6, 1950

Citations

234 S.W.2d 877 (Tex. Crim. App. 1950)
155 Tex. Crim. 304

Citing Cases

Schmeideberg v. State

In Farris v. Texas, 155 Tex.Crim. R., 233 S.W.2d 856, this Court held that the only burglary that is an…

Hollins v. State

It is well settled that it is not necessary to allege prior convictions for the purpose of the enhancement of…