Gammill v. State

Decision Date08 June 1938
Docket NumberNo. 19824.,19824.
Citation117 S.W.2d 790
PartiesGAMMILL v. STATE.
CourtTexas Court of Criminal Appeals

Appeal from District Court, Liberty County; Thos. B. Coe, Judge.

E. G. Gammill was convicted of passing a forged instrument and received a life sentence under averment and proof of former convictions, and he appeals.

Reversed and the cause remanded.

S. K. Long and O. M. Lord, both of Beaumont, for appellant.

Lloyd W. Davidson, State's Atty., of Austin, for the State.

CHRISTIAN, Judge.

The offense is passing a forged instrument. Under averments and proof of former convictions of felonies less than capital appellant was assessed a penalty of confinement in the penitentiary for life.

After appropriate averments charging forgery and passing of a forged instrument in the present case as occurring on the 11th day of January, 1936, the indictment contained the following allegations:

"And the Grand Jurors do further present that prior to the commission of the aforesaid offense of forgery and the offense of unlawfully passing and attempting to pass a forged instrument, by the said E. G. Gammill, on the 26th day of July, A.D. 1932, in the District Court of Harrison County, Texas, the said E. G. Gammill was duly and legally convicted, in said last named court of an offense, to-wit, unlawfully transporting intoxicating liquor, said offense being a felony less than capital, upon an indictment in Cause No. 16190, State of Texas v. Jim Powell, said indictment then legally pending in said last named Court and of which the said court had jurisdiction, the said E. G. Gammill being one and the same person convicted under the name of Jim Powell in said last named court and in said Cause No. 16190, then pending in said last named court.

"And the Grand Jurors do further present that prior to the commission of the aforesaid offense of forgery and the offense of unlawfully passing and attempting to pass a forged instrument by the said E. G. Gammill, hereinbefore charged in this indictment, the said E. G. Gammill was duly and legally convicted in Cause No. 6020, styled State of Texas v. M. C. Moore in the District Court for the County of Cherokee, State of Texas, on the 30th day of July, A.D. 1934, of the offense of forgery, said offense of forgery being of like character and the same nature as that hereinbefore charged against him herein, said offense being less than capital, upon an indictment then legally pending in said last named court and of which the said court had jurisdiction, the said E. G. Gammill being one and the same person convicted under the name of M. C. Moore in said last named court in said Cause No. 6020, then pending in said last named court.

"And the Grand Jurors do further present that prior to the commission of the aforesaid offense of forgery and the offense of unlawfully passing and attempting to pass a forged instrument by the said E. G. Gammill hereinbefore charged in this indictment, the said E. G. Gammill was duly and legally convicted in the District Court of Cherokee County, State of Texas, on the 30th day of July, A.D. 1934, of the offense of forgery, said offense of forgery being of like character and of the same nature as that hereinbefore charged against him herein, said offense being less than capital, upon an indictment in Cause No. 6021, State of Texas v. M. C. Moore, upon an indictment then legally pending in said last named court and of which the said court had jurisdiction, the said E. G. Gammill being the same person convicted under the name of M. C. Moore in said last named court, and in Cause No. 6021, then...

To continue reading

Request your trial
12 cases
  • Harrington v. State, 40849
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
    • January 3, 1968
    ...prosecution as a third offender under Article 63, V.A.P.C. Ex parte Daniels (158 Tex.Cr.R. 2) 252 S.W.2d 586.' See also Gammill v. State, 135 Tex.Cr.R. 52, 117 S.W.2d 790; 16 Tex.Jur.2d, Crim.Law, Sec. 406, p. In Gammill v. State, supra, this Court also said: 'It is observed that the two pr......
  • Mena v. State
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
    • January 23, 1974
    ...that convictions occurring on the same date cannot be used to enhance punishment under Art. 63, V.A.P.C. He cites Gammill v. State, 135 Tex.Cr.R. 52, 117 S.W.2d 790; Ex parte Huff, Tex.Cr.App., 316 S.W.2d 896; Ex parte Atkinson, Tex.Cr.App., 288 S.W.2d 89; and Mullins v. State, 409 S.W.2d W......
  • Puckett v. Ellis, Civ. A. No. 2426.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Texas
    • January 6, 1958
    ...134 Tex.Cr.R. 504, 116 S.W. 2d 396. 8 Square v. State, supra; Mullins v. State, 140 Tex.Cr.R. 261, 144 S.W.2d 565; Gammill v. State, 135 Tex.Cr.R. 52, 117 S.W.2d 790, and Ellis v. State, 134 Tex.Cr.R. 346, 115 S.W.2d 660. 9 Clark v. State, 154 Tex.Cr.R. 581, 230 S.W.2d 234; Garcia v. State,......
  • Mullins v. State
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
    • November 13, 1940
    ...Under the decisions of this court the motion was well taken and should have been by the court sustained. We held in Gammill v. State, 135 Tex.Cr.R. 52, 117 S.W.2d 790, 791, that: "Appellant attacks that part of the indictment alleging the prior convictions on the ground that there is omissi......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT