Donald v. State
| Decision Date | 13 December 1978 |
| Docket Number | No. 54629,No. 1,54629,1 |
| Citation | 574 S.W.2d 119 |
| Parties | Lehman George DONALD, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
William W. Chambers, Fort Worth, for appellant.
Tim C. Curry, Dist. Atty., Marvin L. Collins, Greg Pipes, Burney Walker and Candyce W. Howell, Asst. Dist. Attys., Fort Worth, for the State.
Before DOUGLAS, PHILLIPS and W. C. DAVIS, JJ.
This is an appeal from a conviction for aggravated robbery. Punishment, with the finding of one prior conviction, was assessed at 25 years' imprisonment.
At the outset, we are confronted with fundamental error in the charge which dictates that we reverse the judgment.
It is apparent that appellant was charged with aggravated robbery pursuant to V.T.C.A., Penal Code, Sections 29.02(a)(2) and 29.03(a)(2). However, the court's charge to the jury at the guilt or innocence stage of the trial provided:
"Now if you find from the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that on or about the 24th day of September, 1975, in Tarrant County, Texas, the defendant, Lehman George Donald, did, without the effective consent of George M. Bond, the owner, take and exercise control over the corporeal personal property of George M. Bond, to-wit, money, from the possession of George M. Bond, with intent then and there to deprive George M. Bond of said money, and that said defendant, in so doing, and with intent to acquire and maintain control of said money, Intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly cause bodily injury to said owner or intentionally or knowingly threatened or placed said owner in fear of imminent bodily injury or death, and if you find from the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that in so doing these foregoing acts, if you do so find, The defendant caused serious bodily injury to George M. Bond, or defendant used or exhibited a deadly weapon, to-wit, a firearm, then you will find defendant guilty of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cumbie v. State
...Brewer v. State, 572 S.W.2d 940 (Tex.Cr.App.1978); Armstead v. State, 573 S.W.2d 231 (Tex.Cr.App.1978); Donald v. State, 574 S.W.2d 119 (Tex.Cr.App.1978); Cullum v. State, 576 S.W.2d 87 (Tex.Cr.App.1979); Gooden v. State, 576 S.W.2d 382 (Tex.Cr.App.1979); Clements v. State, 576 S.W.2d 390 (......
-
Gooden v. State
...Fella v. State, 573 S.W.2d 548 (Tex.Cr.App.1978); Bridges v. State, 574 S.W.2d 143 (Tex.Cr.App.1978); Donald v. State, 574 S.W.2d 119 (Tex.Cr.App.1978); Moore v. State, 574 S.W.2d 553 I have again expressed my view which I still believe is correct, but the law of this State is now expressed......
-
Clements v. State, 57299
...Fella v. State, 573 S.W.2d 548 (Tex.Cr.App.1978); Bridges v. State, 574 S.W.2d 143 (Tex.Cr.App.1978); Donald v. State, 574 S.W.2d 119 (Tex.Cr.App.1978); Moore v. State, 574 S.W.2d 553 The holdings in these cases govern and this case must be reversed and remanded for new trial. The judgment ......
-
Gonzales v. State
...Tex.Cr.App., 575 S.W.2d 296; Fella v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 573 S.W.2d 548; Bridges v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 574 S.W.2d 143; Donald v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 574 S.W.2d 119; Moore v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 574 S.W.2d The holdings in the foregoing cases require reversal of this cause. The judgment is ......