Bolton v. State
Citation | 619 S.W.2d 166 |
Decision Date | 22 July 1981 |
Docket Number | 66414,Nos. 63616,s. 63616 |
Parties | Brady Lee BOLTON, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee. Ex parte Brady Lee BOLTON. |
Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Kenneth H. Crow, Guy D. Cox, Waco, for appellant.
Felipe Reyna, Dist. Atty., John W. Segrest, Asst. Dist. Atty., Waco, Robert Huttash, State's Atty., Austin, for the State.
Before the court en banc.
This is an appeal from a conviction for aggravated assault where the punishment, enhanced by a prior felony conviction alleged and proven, was assessed by the jury at twenty (20) years' imprisonment and a $2,000.00 fine. This opinion also involves a post-conviction application for writ of habeas corpus under Article 11.07, V.A.C.C.P., which was filed during the pendency of the appeal of the aggravated assault conviction.
The appellant, inter alia, challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain his aggravated assault conviction, and contends the court erred in admitting into evidence at the penalty stage of the trial three prior burglary convictions, one of which was alleged for enhancement of punishment, because he was indigent at the time and was not represented by counsel.
The State's evidence showed that on February 5, 1979, the appellant became belligerent in a bar and was asked to leave by the complaining witness, Pete Connell, and the waitress. In the parking lot outside the bar, the appellant came at the complaining witness with a knife. Connell dodged the appellant's swipes twice, but the third time appellant came after him, Connell put his arms up to block the blow, and was cut in the arm.
The offense becomes aggravated if a deadly weapon is used. See V.T.C.A., Penal Code, § 22.02(a)(3), prior to its amendment in 1979.
"Bodily injury" is defined in V.T.C.A., Penal Code, § 1.07(a)(7), as:
" 'Bodily injury' means physical pain, illness, or any impairment of physical condition."
The complaining witness testified that he received a cut "about an inch or inch and a half wide and about two to two and a half inches deep." We find that the evidence is sufficient to show bodily injury.
At the penalty stage of the trial the State offered into evidence pen packets concerning three prior burglary convictions on August 24, 1964 in Cause Nos. 11645, 11646 and 11647 in the District Court of Robertson County. Cause No. 11645 was the prior conviction alleged for enhancement of punishment. When offered, the appellant objected to the pen packets contending that at the time of the convictions he was indigent and was not represented by counsel. Nothing was offered in support of the objection, and it was overruled.
During the pendency of the appeal from the aggravated assault conviction, the appellant filed a post-conviction application for writ of habeas corpus in the District Court of Robertson County contending that at the time of his conviction in Cause Nos. 11645, 11646 and 11647 that he was indigent and was not represented by counsel. He offered three affidavits in support in his contention. In addition, he offered the affidavit of the attorney who prosecuted him in the three causes. This affidavit stated:
The trial court, in its findings of fact and conclusions of law, stated:
The trial court concluded that the petitioner was entitled to relief and the record was forwarded to this court where the cause was filed and submitted and given Cause No. 66,414.
While we are not bound by the findings of the trial judge, we have concluded that the evidence supports the trial judge's findings. The burglary convictions in said Cause Nos. 11645, 11646 and 11647 are hereby set aside. The relief prayed for is granted. See Ex parte Stanford, 571 S.W.2d 28 (Tex.Cr.App.1978); Ex parte Rains, 555 S.W.2d 478 (Tex.Cr.App.1977); Ex parte Woodard, 541 S.W.2d 187 (Tex.Cr.App.1976).
Having set aside the prior conviction (Cause No. 11645) alleged and used for enhancement of punishment as well as two other prior convictions (Ca...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Arzaga v. State
...sufficient evidence of physical pain necessary to establish "bodily injury" within the meaning of the statute. See Bolton v. State, 619 S.W.2d 166, 167 (Tex.Crim.App.1981) (evidence of cut on arm sufficient to show bodily injury); Goodin, 750 S.W.2d at 859 (rejecting contention that because......
-
Williams v. State, No. 01-03-01295-CR (TX 3/17/2005)
...or scrape on the victim's body. Arzaga v. State, 86 S.W.3d 767, 778 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2002, no pet.). See also Bolton v. State, 619 S.W.2d 166, 167 (Tex. Crim. App. 1981) (holding evidence of small cut on arm sufficient to show bodily injury); Goodin v. State, 750 S.W.2d 857, 859 (Tex. App......
-
Hill v. State
...at the penalty stage, our remand must be for an entirely new trial. Ex parte Nivens, 619 S.W.2d 184 (Tex.Cr.App.1981); Bolton v. State, 619 S.W.2d 166 (Tex.Cr.App.1981); Ex parte Howeth, 609 S.W.2d 540 Accordingly, this cause is reversed and remanded to the trial court and appellant is orde......
-
Carrillo v. State
...when complainant suffered pain and bruise from appellant grabbing her wallet and twisting it away); see also Bolton v. State, 619 S.W.2d 166, 167 (Tex. Crim. App. 1981) (evidence of cut sufficient to show bodily injury); Arzaga v. State, 86 S.W.3d 767, 778-79 (Tex. App. - El Paso 2002, no p......