Chapman v. State
Decision Date | 25 September 1972 |
Docket Number | No. 45333,45333 |
Parties | Lonnie Ray CHAPMAN, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee. |
Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Douglas Tinker, Corpus Christi, for appellant.
William B. Mobley, Jr., Dist. Atty., and Phillip Westergren, Asst. Dist. Atty., Corpus Christi, and Jim D. Vollers, State's Atty., Robert A. Huttash, Asst. State's Atty., Austin, for the State.
DALLY, Commissioner.
The conviction is for robbery by firearms; the punishment, fifty years imprisonment.
We first consider the appellant's contention that 'there is no evidence or insufficient evidence to corroborate the accomplice testimony of Willie Sterling Hamilton.'
Lewis Pollack, the complaining witness named in the indictment, an employee of the Circle K Drive-In located on Leopard Street in Corpus Christi, was working there during the early morning hours of July 22, 1970. He testified that at approximately 2:00 a.m. a which I did, both drawers and then he said, 'Get down on the floor and stay down." Pollack was 'scared' and the robber took approximately $70.00 in cash which he carried from the drive-in in a paper sack.
Meredith Calloway, a twenty-three year old cabinet maker, was outside the Circle K Drive-In on Leopard Street at the time in question, talking to a friend, John Mikulec. They both testified that while they were talking they noticed a car pull in front of the Harley-Davidson Motorcycle Shop, which was next door to the drive-in. The car ran into a chughole or over a drain sewer and made a loud noise. The car lights were off. They saw Hamilton get out of the car and go inside the Circle K Drive-In. The car then circled around and came back to the Whataburger Stand nearby. In a few minutes Hamilton came back out of the Circle K Drive-In with a brown bag in one hand and holding his hip with the other hand. As he came out and looked at Calloway and Mikulec, 'he was walking, at first, in a slow walk, and then he kind of ran--to the car and got in and they speed off.' There were several persons in the car but these witnesses could not see them well enough to identify the appellant as being one of the persons in the car.
Melvin Johnson, who had pled guilty to the same offense for which the appellant was on trial and been placed on probation, Was called by the appellant as a witness. 1 He testified that his brother-in-law, Calvin Johnson, had had trouble with another man concerning the woman he was living with and was looking for a gun for protection. They saw Willie Hamilton in a lounge and asked him for a weapon. Hamilton obtained a pistol from the appellant, who was also in the lounge. The appellant and the Johnsons were not acquainted. The appellant and Hamilton got into a car with Melvin and Calvin Johnson. Melvin drove to a residence where Calvin got out and went inside with the pistol to get 'his business straight.' He soon came out and rejoined those who remained in the car. He handed the pistol back to Hamilton. After some discussion of bravery and daring feats, Hamilton asked that he be taken to a store. Hamilton pointed out the Circle K Drive-In on Leopard Street.
As they approached and he got out of the car, Hamilton said in a normal tone of voice, Melvin Johnson said he then 'understood' and 'started realizing what he (Hamilton) was fixing to do' but 'there wasn't any conversation in the car about what he was going to do.'
After Hamilton came running to the car and was picked up and Johnson sped off, he testified Johnson then drove back to the lounge where he had met the appellant and Hamilton. When the appellant and Hamilton got out of the car, the appellant was carrying the sack containing the money.
The statement of the appellant which was admitted into evidence, reads as follows:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Rubio v. State
...held that three extraneous robberies were admissible on the issue of the defendant's intent. Avilla v. State, supra at 235. In Chapman v. State, 486 S.W.2d 383, the defendant admitted being present when a robbery was committed by his co-defendants, but denied any knowledge of their criminal......
-
Cranfil v. State, 49922
...699 (Tex.Cr.App.1972); Daviss v. State, 162 Tex.Cr.R. 280, 284 S.W.2d 713 (1955); 24 Tex.Jur.2d, § 687, p. 304, and see Chapman v. State, 486 S.W.2d 383 (Tex.Cr.App.1972). Jo Nell Owens testified that the appellant and Stayton had come to the Owens' house Saturday evening and that on Sunday......
-
Reed v. State, 45010
...from which the jury could conclude that the testimony relative to having won the gun in a crap game was untrue. See Chapman v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 486 S.W.2d 383 (1972); Cuevas v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 456 S.W.2d 110; Windom v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 429 S.W.2d The unexplained possession of the ......
-
Aston v. State
...699 (Tex.Cr.App.1972); Daviss v. State, 162 Tex.Cr.R. 280, 284 S.W.2d 713 (1955); 24 Tex.Jur.2d, § 687, p. 304, and see Chapman v. State, 486 S.W.2d 383 (Tex.Cr.App.1972)." See also Brown v. State, 576 S.W.2d 36, 42 (Tex.Cr.App.1978) (Reversed on rehearing on other The trial court was in er......