Dickey v. State
| Decision Date | 04 May 1960 |
| Docket Number | No. 31841,31841 |
| Citation | 169 Tex.Crim. 576,336 S.W.2d 165 |
| Parties | Gale Carroll DICKEY, Appellant, v. STATE of Texas, Appellee. |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
W. E. Martin (on appeal only), Houston, for appellant.
Dan Walton, Dist. Atty., Carl E. F. Dally, Morgan W. Redd, Asst. Dist. Attys., Houston, and Leon B. Douglas, State's Atty., Austin, for the State.
DICE, Commissioner.
The conviction is for robbery by assault with punishment assessed under Art. 62, Vernon's Ann.P.C. at life imprisonment by reason of a prior alleged conviction for an offense of like character.
The indictment alleged that on or about the 25th day of April, 1959, the appellant committed the primary offense and that prior to the commission of said offense the appellant was on the 15th day of November, 1957, convicted in the Criminal District Court No. 3 of Harris County, Texas, of an offense of like character 'to-wit, the offense of theft, a felony.'
The prosecuting witness, Millie Steel, testified that on the date alleged she was employed as a cashier at a Florians' Finer Food Store in the City of Houston; that on such date while she was on duty working in a courtesy booth, a man, whom she positively identified as the appellant entered with a gun and stated 'I want that money;' that appellant then took all the money which she had in a drawer and file cabinet together with the money which another cashier, Miss Foreboch, had in a drawer and then left. The prosecuting witness testified that on such occasion approximately $1,000 was taken from the money drawer and that she was in fear of being shot or killed and for such reason permitted appellant to take the money. Other witnesses called by the state corroborated the testimony of Miss Steel as to the commission of the robbery including Miss Foreboch, the other cashier, who identified the appellant as the guilty party.
Appellant's written confession made to the officers after his arrest was introduced in evidence by the state in which he admitted committing the robbery on the day in question.
In proof of the prior alleged conviction the state introduced in evidence certified copies of the judgment and sentence in cause No. 81,547, styled The State of Texas v. Gale Carroll Dickey on the docket of Criminal District Court No. 3 of Harris County which showed that on the 15th day of November, 1957, the defendant therein was convicted of 'theft, a felony' and assessed punishment at two years confinement in the penitentiary. Proof was made by the state and appellant admitted that he was the person so convicted in the cause.
Testifying as a witness in his own behalf, appellant repudiated his written confession made to the officers, testified that it was not voluntarily made, denied committing the robbery and testified to a defense of alibi.
The court submitted to the jury in his charge the appellant's defense of alibi and the issue which was...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Jones v. State
...S.W.2d 358; Shannon v. State, 170 Tex.Cr.R. 91, 338 S.W.2d 462, cert. den., 364 U.S. 935, 81 S.Ct. 386, 5 L.Ed.2d 369; Dickey v. State, 169 Tex.Cr.R. 576, 336 S.W.2d 165; theft from person and robbery, Williams v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 402 S.W.2d 764; burglary and robbery, Robertson v. State,......
-
Watson v. State
...offenses. Further, while it has been held under the former Penal Code that robbery is an aggravated form of theft, Dickey v. State, 169 Tex.Cr.R. 576, 336 S.W.2d 165 (1960), there have always been some distinguishing features between theft and robbery. See 50 Tex.Jur.2d, Robbery, Sec. 2, p.......
-
Cherry v. State, 42269
...S.W.2d 209; Kanaziz v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 382 S.W.2d 485. The offense of robbery is but an aggravated form of theft. Dickey v. State, 169 Tex.Cr.R. 576, 336 S.W.2d 165; Shannon v. State, 170 Tex.Cr.R. 91, 338 S.W.2d 462, cert. den. 364 U.S. 935, 81 S.Ct. 386, 5 L.Ed.2d In Dickey v. State, ......
-
Ex parte Lucas
...as the offense required a completed theft as an element of the crime. Watson v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 532 S.W.2d 619; Dickey v. State, 169 Tex.Cr.R. 576, 336 S.W.2d 165. Under Sec. 29.03, however, no completed theft is required. Earl v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 514 S.W.2d 273; Reese v. State, Tex.......