Garza v. State
| Decision Date | 07 May 1969 |
| Docket Number | No. 41125,41125 |
| Citation | 440 S.W.2d 860 |
| Parties | Eulogio GARZA, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee. |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Elbert V. Pollan, and James W. Gregg, Rosenberg (court-appointed on appeal), for appellant.
R. A. Bassett, Dist. Atty., Richmond, William W. Burge, F. M. Stover and Phyllis Bell, Asst. Dist. Attys., of Harris County, Houston, and Jim D. Vollers, State's Atty., Austin, for the State.
The conviction is for the possession of heroin; the punishment, thirty years.
The appeal in this cause was previously abated to provide the indigent appellant the effective aid of counsel on appeal and to allow the filing of a brief in the trial court. The appeal has now been perfected. Garza v. State, 433 S.W.2d 428.
The appellant was jointly indicted with Simon Dominguez and Tomasa Hernandez for the unlawful possession of heroin.
Severance was granted and Tomasa Hernandez was tried before a jury on a plea of not guilty. After a verdict of guilty, the court assessed her punishment at 20 years. The opinion on appeal is reported in 435 S.W.2d 520.
The appellant in his brief urges four grounds of error for reversal.
In his first ground of error the appellant contends that the heroin was seized as the result of an illegal search.
The second ground is that the trial court erred in the admission of testimony that the appellant gave his consent to the search of the automobile.
The third ground complains of the refusal of the trial court to require the disclosure of the identity of the informer.
The evidence on the merits in this case is substantially the same as that adduced in Hernandez v. State, supra. It was stipulated that the evidence on the pre-trial hearing on the motion to suppress in Hernandez was the same as in this case. The hearing to suppress was held for all the indictees at the same time and before the severance was was granted.
The three grounds urged as error in the brief of appellant's companion, Tomasa Hernandez, and considered on appeal as shown in Hernandez v. State, supra, are the same as those presented in this case. The consideration and disposition of these grounds in Hernandez are applicable and controlling in this case. The three grounds of error are overruled.
The appellant in his fourth ground of error contends that the trial court abused its discretion in refusing to grant the 'Motion for Withdrawal of Counsel' or motion for continuance.
The indictment was returned and filed on May 9, 1966. On that date the appellant was arraigned, advised of his rights, entered a plea of not guilty, and his bond was set at $5,000. On May 23, 1966, the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
David v. State
...the court abused its discretion in overruling the motions to withdraw. Schafter v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 436 S.W.2d 352; Garza v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 440 S.W.2d 860. See also Estrada v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 406 S.W.2d 448. The record before us does not support any claim of ineffective assistan......
-
Weeks v. State, 44525
...motion to withdraw, when same were made on the first day of trial. See Brown v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 464 S.W.2d 134; Garza v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 440 S.W.2d 860; Estrada v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 406 S.W.2d Appellant complains that the evidence is insufficient to support the verdict finding tha......