Cleland v. State
Decision Date | 12 April 1978 |
Docket Number | No. 3,No. 54100,54100,3 |
Citation | 575 S.W.2d 296 |
Parties | David Travis CLELAND, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee |
Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Antonia M. I. Ingversen, Houston, for appellant.
Carol S. Vance, Dist. Atty., Alvin M. Titus and Timothy P. Alecander, Asst. Dist. Attys., Houston, for the State.
Before ROBERTS, PHILLIPS and VOLLERS, JJ.
This is an appeal from a conviction for robbery. After a trial by jury, the trial judge assessed the appellant's punishment at fifteen years' confinement in the Texas Department of Corrections.
The record reflects that the appellant sprayed mace in the eyes of the manager of a service station in Houston and took money from the cash register in the station. The appellant was apprehended fleeing from the scene of the crime.
At the outset, we are confronted with fundamental error in the charge which dictates that we reverse the judgment.
V.T.C.A., Penal Code, Section 29.02(a) states:
It is clear that the indictment alleged that the appellant committed robbery under V.T.C.A., Penal Code, Section 29.02(a)(1), by alleging that the appellant intentionally and knowingly caused bodily injury to the complainant.
The pertinent portion of the trial judge's charge stated:
It is clear that the charge authorized a conviction for robbery under V.T.C.A., Penal Code, Section 29.02(a)(1), if the jury found, among other things, that the appellant intentionally and knowingly caused bodily injury to Stephanie Wolff. However, it is equally clear that the charge also authorized a conviction for robbery under V.T.C.A., Penal Code, Section 29.02(a)(2), if the jury found, among other things, that the appellant intentionally or knowingly threatened or placed Stephanie Wolff in fear of imminent bodily injury or death. Thus, the charge authorized the jury to convict the appellant on two theories when only one was alleged in the indictment.
In Robinson v. State, 553 S.W.2d 371 (Tex.Cr.App.1977), the indictment alleged that the defendant had committed robbery under V.T.C.A., Penal Code, Section 29.02(a)(2) and further alleged that the robbery was aggravated under V.T.C.A., Penal Code, Section 29.03(a)(2). However, the charge in Robinson authorized the jury to convict the defendant under every conceivable theory under V.T.C.A., Penal Code, Sections 29.02(a) and 29.03(a). We there stated:
See also Davis v. State, 557 S.W.2d 303 (Tex.Cr.App. 1977); Dowden v. State, 537 S.W.2d 5 (Tex.Cr.App. 1976).
In the present case, the charge authorized the jury to convict the appellant on a theory not alleged in the indictment. This was fundamental error.
The judgment is reversed and the cause remanded.
Before the court en banc.
DOUGLAS, Judge, dissenting on State's motion for rehearing.
On original submission, without an objection to the charge presented to the court and without a brief filed in the trial court calling the court's attention to any error in the court's charge, the Court reversed this cause on fundamental error.
The error was not reversible in 1976. Such an error in the charge was held not to be reversible error by all members of the Court in Williams v. State, 535 S.W.2d 352 (Tex.Cr.App.1976). Williams was charged with robbery by intentionally and knowingly threatening and placing another in fear of imminent bodily injury and death. The court charged the jury to convict if it found that Williams threatened or caused bodily injury just as the charge in the present case did. This Court recognized that a theory not charged in the indictment was submitted to the jury and that it was erroneous in that respect. The Court held:
The indictment alleged that appellant knowingly committed bodily injury during the course of a robbery. The charge submitted to the jury authorized conviction if the jury found that appellant intentionally, knowingly or recklessly caused bodily injury or intentionally or knowingly threatened or placed said owner in fear of imminent bodily injury or death.
All the evidence is direct that he caused bodily injury intentionally and knowingly. There is no evidence that he threatened her with bodily injury or death. He just caused bodily injury.
Let us look to the record to see if this was such an error that was calculated to injure the rights of the appellant or prevented him from having a fair and impartial trial.
On the day in question, appellant stood by the Conoco Service Station at the 6600 block of South Main in Houston near a taxicab stand for about and hour and forty minutes. He told the operator of the station, Stephanie Wolff, that he had been there that long. He had a bandage around his head and as she was working he walked behind her and said, "Look here," and sprayed mace in her eyes. He then grabbed the cash drawer and she knocked the money out of his hand. He headed toward the Tides Hotel. As she followed, the mace blinded her and she fell down. She testified that the mace impaired her vision, that her eyes puffed up and that she could see momentarily after the mace hit her eyes but they completely closed and she lost her sight temporarily. She stated that they smarted an awful lot, that some people came by and flushed her eyes out with a water hose. In the meantime she was hollering, "robbery, robbery," and the two men nearby caught the appellant and brought him back to the service station.
Raymond L. Foster, a seventeen-year-old senior of Kashmere High School working as a porter at the Tides II Motor Inn on South Main in Houston, heard Stephanie Wolff calling for help and he, along with another, started chasing appellant. They caught him, and as they raised up his shirt, the bandage that he had had on his head had fallen out. They found a gun on his person. The mace was wrapped up in the bandage that fell out when his shirt was raised. He identified appellant as the one he caught.
An officer who came and took appellant into custody testified that he took the items, the mace, bandage and the gun which turned out to be a replica of a .357 Magnum gun and that it was not a toy but had moving parts and looked like that type of gun.
The jury found appellant guilty and the judge assessed punishment at fifteen years. The court had before it at the punishment hearing a record of probation that he had granted appellant and the record shows that he had been convicted for other offenses and had a list of other places that he apparently intended to rob. Appellant testified that he had been convicted for a felony in Virginia in 1953, had been convicted in New Jersey for a separate felony in 1947 and had been placed on probation. He had in his possession a notebook which listed a group of service stations, and he explained, He stated that he was going to pick one of these places to rob.
With this record, it cannot be said that the judge assessed a punishment that was too severe.
Could the jury have been misled when the court instructed that they should convict appellant if they found that appellant "intentionally, knowingly or recklessly cause bodily injury to said owner, or intentionally, or knowingly...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Cumbie v. State
...years, we have reversed no small number of cases for fundamental error in the court's charge. See Cleland v. State, 575 S.W.2d 296, 299 (Tex.Cr.App.1978) (dissenting opinion of Douglas, J.). We have held that, if that portion of the court's charge to the jury which applies the law to the fa......
-
O'Connor v. First Court of Appeals
...Hardison v. State, 597 S.W.2d 355 (Tex.Crim.App.1980); Ozuna v. State, 587 S.W.2d 385 (Tex.Crim.App.1979); Cleland v. State, 575 S.W.2d 296 (Tex.Crim.App.1978); Johnson v. State, 573 S.W.2d 778 (Tex.Crim.App.1978); Brewer v. State, 572 S.W.2d 940 (Tex.Crim.App.1978).7 See Molnar v. Engels, ......
-
Plunkett v. State
...application of the law to the facts, the charge is fundamentally defective. McGee v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 575 S.W.2d 563; Cleland v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 575 S.W.2d 296. 2 Such a charge is in error because it Authorizes a conviction on a theory not alleged in the indictment, not just because ......
-
Lewis v. Procunier
...Lewis' appeal would not have succeeded even if the variance had been called "fundamental error." See Cleland v. State, 575 S.W.2d 296, 297 (Tex.Crim.App.1979) (Douglas, J., dissenting). The fundamental error reversal for variances between indictment and charge, despite lack of objection or ......