Andrews v. State, 41655
| Decision Date | 18 December 1968 |
| Docket Number | No. 41655,41655 |
| Citation | 436 S.W.2d 546 |
| Parties | Jake ANDREWS, Jr., Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee. |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Bill Cannon, Houston (Court Appointed on Appeal Only), for appellant.
Carol S. Vance, Dist. Atty., Houston, Phyllis Bell and Frederick M. Stover, Asst. Dist. Attys., Houston, and Leon B. Douglas, State's Atty., Austin, for the State.
The conviction is for the possession of marijuana with a prior conviction for the possession of marijuana alleged for enhancement; the punishment, life.
The first ground is that the trial court erred in admitting in evidence the fruits of an illegal arrest, search and seizure.
The testimony of the state reveals that after two narcotics officers, Gray and Fears, received information that a sale of narcotics would be made at appellant's house they set up a surveillance at 9:45 a.m., about two hundred feet from his house. Approximately ten minutes later two men in a Buick stopped in front of appellant's house and when the horn was blown the appellant walked from the house toward the Buick and turned to a vacant lot overgrown with weeds. In two or three minutes the appellant emerged from the weeds going toward the Buick with a large paper bag in his left hand and as he approached the Buick he pulled a small bag from the large bag with his right hand. At this time the officers parked their car in front of the Buick, the appellant looked toward them, dropped the small bag and ran to his house carrying the large bag and threw it in the back yard. Gray recovered the bag dropped near the Buick and Fears recovered the large bag which was found to contain two small bags.
From the facts and circumstances in evidence, it is concluded that the three bags were not obtained as a result of an illegal arrest and search. Further, there was no objection made at the time the testimony of Officers Gray and Fears was given on the ground that appellant's arrest and the search were illegal. Ground of error number one is overruled.
In ground of error number two, the appellant contends:
'The trial court committed reversible error by admitting into evidence prior convictions at the punishment hearing held in this cause as there is no showing that this defendant, Jake Andrews, Jr., had counsel on any of the alleged prior convictions.'
Other than the statement in the ground of error as presented, there is no showing by the appellant in the record or in his brief in support of his position. The record evidence introduced by the state reveals that the appellant had counsel on said prior convictions. The ground of error is overruled.
The third ground of error contends that:
'The trial court committed reversible error in that the state of Texas has placed the defendant in double jeopardy and in violation of the fifth amendment of the United States of America.'
Evidently the appellant is complaining of being tried on a new indictment returned after the reversal following a prior conviction for this offense. Andrews v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 407...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Foster v. State
...State's evidence. This question is not before us; however compare Dupree v. State, 56 Tex.Cr.R. 562, 120 S.W. 871 (1909); Andrews v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 436 S.W.2d 546; Whitehead v. State, 162 Tex.Cr.R. 507, 286 S.W.2d 947. Id. at In Andrews v. State, 436 S.W.2d 546 (Tex.Cr.App.1969), where......
-
Mayes v. State
...137; State v. Chapman (1968), 251 La. 1089, 208 So.2d 686; State v. Anderson (1966), 242 Or. 368, 409 P.2d 681; Andrews v. State (1968), Tex.Cr.App., 436 S.W.2d 546; State v. Lee (1968), 74 Wash.2d 967, 447 P.2d 169; see also annotation 21 A.L.R. The Graham case therefore provides a demarca......
-
Graham v. State
...137; State v. Chapman (1968), 251 La. 1089, 208 So.2d 686; State v. Anderson (1966), 242 Or. 368, 409 P.2d 681; Andrews v. State (1968), Tex.Cr.App., 436 S.W.2d 546; State v. Lee (1968), 74 Wash.2d 967, 447 P.2d 169; see also annotation 21 A.L.R. Turning to the case at bar we find that the ......
-
Jones v. State, 46590
...the fingerprints on Exhibit No. 5--a with known prints of appellant. Gibson v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 434 S.W.2d 851; Andrews v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 436 S.W.2d 546; Emerson v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 476 S.W.2d 686. It was not necessary for Chatham to have made the prints for him to authenticate i......