Pitcock v. State

Citation367 S.W.2d 864
Decision Date22 May 1963
Docket NumberNo. 35794,35794
PartiesB. J. PITCOCK, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.
CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas. Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas

Marvin F. Foster, Jr., Corpus Christi, for appellant.

Leon B. Douglas, State's Atty., Austin, for the State.

McDONALD, Judge.

The conviction was for misdemeanor theft, under an indictment charging felony theft, with a prior felony conviction alleged for enhancement; the punishment, confinement in jail for one year.

The indictment alleged the theft of thirteen items, having an aggregate value of over fifty dollars. Proof was offered as to only nine of these. The property not being of uniform value, there must be proof of each item alleged. Anderson v. State, 166 Tex.Cr.R. 337, 314 S.W.2d 603, and cases therein cited.

In passing, we note that should the appellant again offer to fully stipulate as to the prior conviction, the state should not be allowed to introduce evidence on this point. Our holding in Thompson v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 339 S.W.2d 209, to the extent of being in conflict herewith, is modified. The jury has no choice in imposing punishment if it finds the appellant guilty and that he has been previously convicted. Thus, if accused stipulates the prior conviction, that issue is resolved and the question of guilt is all that remains. Salinas v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 365 S.W.2d 362. To allow its introduction, after such stipulation, resolves no issue and may result in prejudice to the accused.

For the reason stated, the judgment is reversed and the cause is remanded.

To continue reading

Request your trial
34 cases
  • Spencer v. State of Texas Bell v. State of Texas Reed v. Beto 8212 70
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • January 23, 1967
    ...the State made stipulation a right. The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals approved a stipulation procedure for felony cases in Pitcock v. State, 367 S.W.2d 864 (1963), on the convincing ground that, because the recidivist statutes in felony cases provided for automatic sentencing, a stipulati......
  • Ovalles v. United States, 17-10172
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (11th Circuit)
    • October 4, 2018
    ...Comm'n, 2017 Sourcebook of Federal Sentencing Statistics fig. C, https://www.ussc.gov/research/sourcebook-2017.69 See Pitcock v. State , 367 S.W.2d 864, 865 (Tex. Crim. App. 1963) (explaining that under a recidivism statute, "should the appellant again offer to fully stipulate as to the pri......
  • Smith v. State, B14-87-281-CR
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Texas
    • May 19, 1988
    ...offense before its introduction into evidence. Thompson v. State, 170 Tex.Crim. 258, 339 S.W.2d 209 (1960); but see, Pitcock v. State, 367 S.W.2d 864 (Tex.Crim.App.1963). Therefore, the only prejudice that could have resulted would be if the state had argued that the prior convictions were ......
  • Beto v. Stacks, 25751.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (5th Circuit)
    • February 28, 1969
    ...noncapital cases, a defendant by stipulating his prior convictions could keep knowledge of them away from the jury. See Pitcock v. State, Tex. Cr.App., 367 S.W.2d 864. But see the decision below in Spencer v. State, Tex. Cr.App., 389 S.W.2d 304, for the inapplicability of the stipulation ru......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT