Allison v. State
| Decision Date | 31 January 1968 |
| Docket Number | No. 40988,40988 |
| Citation | 423 S.W.2d 326 |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
| Parties | Olson Clifford ALLISON, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee. |
Lee Nowlin, Frank Gaston, Plainview, for appellant.
Leon B. Douglas, State's Atty., Austin, for the State.
The conviction is for the subsequent offense of driving while intoxicated; the punishment, two years in the Department of Corrections.
The imposition of sentence was suspended by the court and appellant was placed on probation.
This is an appeal from the judgment of conviction at the time appellant was placed on probation. Art. 42.12, Sec. 8, Vernon's Ann.C.C.P.
As grounds for reversal, the appellant contends that the trial court erred in admitting in evidence the complaint, information, and judgment in the prior alleged conviction, and also in admitting a certified copy of his driver's license record. To the admission of said evidence, he objected on the ground that no proper predicate had been laid; that there is a variance between the date of the judgment of conviction and the date of the judgment shown in the driving record; that the alleged prior judgment was not final; and that the proper identification of the appellant was not made.
An examination of the record evidence reveals that it was properly authenticated to authorize its admission in evidence. Art. 3731a, Vernon's Ann.Civ.St.
The indictment alleges that the prior conviction was had on September 20, 1948. The driving record shows that the date of the offense was September 19, 1948. The prior judgment of conviction as well as the driving record shows that the alleged prior judgment of conviction was had September 20, 1948. There is no variance.
The complaint in the record of the state's demand of the appellant to produce his driver's license or secondary evidence would be offered to make such proof will be considered as unassigned error. Art. 40.09, Sec. 13, C.C.P.
In the presence of the jury while the state was making out its case in chief, the district attorney made demand of the appellant to produce his driver's license or secondary proof thereof would be offered.
The appellant objected to such demand on the ground that it called for him to testify and offer evidence against himself, and moved the court to instruct the jury not to consider it.
The court sustained the objection and instructed the jury to disregard the demand for any purpose.
Next, Officer Nichols, having testified that the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
McClure v. State, 62125
...of a constitutional right had been somehow asserted: McClellan v. State, 413 S.W.2d 391, 392 (Tex.Cr.App.1967) and Allison v. State, 423 S.W.2d 326, 327 (Tex.Cr.App.1968)--"The complaint in the record of the state's demand of the appellant to produce his driver's license or secondary eviden......
-
Olson v. State
...self-incrimination provision as established by the decisional authority of this court. He cites and relies upon Allison v. State, 423 S.W.2d 326 (Tex.Cr.App.1968) (driver's license); Trammell v. State, 162 Tex.Cr.R. 543, 287 S.W.2d 487 (Tex.Cr.App.1956) (blood sample); Marshall v. State, 15......
-
Clifton v. State, 2-87-136-CR
...enhancement was not final, the trial court does not err in relying on that conviction when assessing sentence. See Allison v. State, 423 S.W.2d 326, 328 (Tex.Crim.App.1968). The appellant's fourth point of error is Finding no error in the court below, the appellant's conviction is affirmed. ...
-
Crawford v. State, 43699
...Sec. 13, V.A.C.C.P. See Butler v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 462 S.W.2d 596; Heltzel v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 462 S.W.2d 289; Allison v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 423 S.W.2d 326; Wilson v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 407 S.W.2d In Wilson v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 436 S.W.2d 542, this court stated that the proper tim......