Glenn v. State, 41841
| Decision Date | 29 January 1969 |
| Docket Number | No. 41841,41841 |
| Citation | 436 S.W.2d 344 |
| Parties | Vernell GLENN, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee. |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Mike Barclay, Dallas, for appellant.
Henry Wade, Dist. Atty., Douglas Mulder, John H. Stauffer, Camille Elliott, Malcolm Dade and Kerry P. FitzGerald, Asst. Dist. Attys., Dallas, and Jim D. Vollers, State's Atty., Austin, for the State.
The offense is robbery by assault; the punishment, 50 years' confinement in the Texas Department of Corrections.
Appellant does not challenge the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the conviction and we do not deem it essential to recite the facts herein.
In his sole ground of error appellant urges that the trial court, at the penalty stage of the proceedings, erred in admitting into evidence a prior conviction as part of his criminal record. He contends such action was prejudicial to him.
After the jury's verdict of guilty was returned on April 10, 1967, the appellant requested the court to assess punishment. See Article 37.07, Vernon's Ann.C.C.P., 1965, in effect at the time of appellant's trial.
At the hearing on punishment there was a stipulation that appellant had been previously convicted of unlawfully carrying a pistol in 1964. Record evidence of such conviction was also offered. In addition, the State introduced the duly authenticated prison record of the appellant resulting from a conviction for burglary in Cause No. E--6634--IJ in Criminal District Court No. 3 of Dallas County, Texas, on September 15, 1964. Included in such exhibit was a certified copy of the judgment and sentence in said cause. No objection was made to this exhibit or the offer of the indictment in said cause.
Subsequently, however, the appellant did object when the State offered another exhibit consisting solely of the aforesaid judgment and sentence, thus duplicating in part the first exhibit. His objection was on the grounds that such exhibit was 'vague and uncertain.' He called the trial court's attention to a special finding in the said judgment that the defendant committed 'said offense on the 2nd day of Spr., 1964.'
The indictment in said Cause No. E--6634--IJ, presented June 29, 1964, alleged the offense of burglary to have occurred 'on or about April 2, 1964.' The judgment, in addition to the complained of special finding, reflects that the defendant, Vernell Glenn, entered a plea of guilty before the court and that the court found him guilty of 'Burglary, as charged in the indictment.' The sentence has a similar reflection.
We first observe that the date on which the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Branch v. Estelle
...between the indictment and the proof is not fatal to the conviction. See Noah v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 495 S.W.2d 260; Glenn v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 436 S.W.2d 344. It is settled in this Circuit that the sufficiency of a state indictment is not a matter for federal habeas corpus relief unless ......
-
Hendrix v. State
...of the indictment, July 15, 2003, and within the statutory limitations period, which had not expired. See Glenn v. State, 436 S.W.2d 344, 345-46 (Tex.Crim.App.1969); Owens, 96 S.W.3d at 671-72 (holding trial court has discretion to cumulate sentences under section 3.03(b) when there is some......
-
McDonald v. State
...that the offense was committed any time prior to the return of the indictment that is within the period of limitation. Glenn v. State, 436 S.W.2d 344 (Tex.Cr.App.1969). The evidence here showed the offense occurred on September 12, 1971, and was sufficient to show it was committed prior to ......
-
Scoggan v. State
...date anterior to presentment of indictment and the crime's occurrence is not so remote as to be barred by limitation. Glenn v. State, 436 S.W.2d 344, 346 (Tex.Cr.App.1969).4 This statute reads "A conviction under Chapter 21, Section 22.011, or Section 22.021, Penal Code, is supportable on t......