Castanuela v. State, 33285
| Decision Date | 12 April 1961 |
| Docket Number | No. 33285,33285 |
| Parties | Eugenio CASTANUELA, Appellant, v. STATE of Texas, Appellee. |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Appellant filed brief per se.
Charles J. Lieck, Jr., Criminal Dist. Atty., Jack A. Efron, Harry A. Nass, Jr., Asst. Criminal Dist. Attys., San Antonio, and Leon B. Douglas, State's Atty., Austin, for the State.
The offense is passing as true a forged instrument, with three prior convictions for felonies less than capital alleged for enhancement; the punishment, life.
The witness Rogene Green, an employee of the Texas Surplus Property Agency, testified that such agency was a state organization functioning under the federal government devoted to dispensing surplus government property to institutions, that it carried an account at the Northside State Bank in San Antonio known as the Administrative Imprest Fund, that the checks used to draw on such account were kept in a book at the office of such agency, that each was numbered, and that it was her duty to fill in the stub at the time each check was issued. She testified that when she left the office at closing time on Thursday, June 2 (Friday being a holiday), checks numbered 1778, 1779 and 1780 were in the checkbook and were the next to be issued; that upon her return to the office on the following Monday morning she found the office in disarray, the back door having been broken in, the above three numbered checks missing from the book, the stubs blank, and upon further examination she discovered that other checks had been removed from the checkbook. She stated that all checks issued on this fund were typewritten, except for the signature, and that the only persons authorized to sign checks on such account were L. K. Barry, George D. McCormick and herself. State's Exhibit #5, which was check #1778, executed in handwriting, payable to appellant in the sum of $75 and signed 'H. L. Green, Director,' was exhibited to her, and she denied that she had signed the same or that it was in the handwriting of either Mr. Barry or Mr. McCormick. She testified that she did not know appellant and that, according to her social security records, he had never been an employee of the agency. She testified that upon discovery of the loss of the blank checks she notified the Northside State Bank to stop payment on them.
Barry and McCormick corroborated her testimony and denied that the check in question had been signed by them or under...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Polanco v. State
...Baity v. State, 455 S.W.2d 305 (Tex.Cr.App.1970); Ivey v. State, 425 S.W.2d 631 (Tex.Cr.App.1968); Castanuela v. State, 171 Tex.Cr.R. 173, 346 S.W.2d 332 (1961). Lastly, appellant complains that the indictment should have been quashed because he had been denied his right to an examining tri......
-
Ex parte Castanuela
...Department of Corrections under the judgment of conviction in said court which was affirmed in 1961 by this Court in Castanuela v. State, 171 Tex.Cr.R. 173, 346 S.W.2d 332, prior to the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in Douglas v. People of State of California, 372 U.S. ......
-
Pendleton v. State, 41512
...given is immaterial in absence of a timely objection or special requested charge and nothing is presented for review. Castanuela v. State, 171 Tex.Cr.R. 173, 346 S.W.2d 332. We find absolutely no merit in appellant's next contention that unless prior convictions are alleged in the indictmen......
-
Washington v. State, 44066
...of an objection, no error is reflected in the Court's failure to charge on the law of circumstantial evidence. Castanuela v. State, 171 Tex.Cr.R. 173, 346 S.W.2d 332.' Hart v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 455 S.W.2d 237, Additionally, it appears that no charge on circumstantial evidence was required......