Gonzales v. State, 38997

CourtTexas Court of Criminal Appeals
CitationGonzales v. State, 399 S.W.2d 360 (Tex. Crim. App. 1966)
Decision Date19 January 1966
Docket NumberNo. 38997,38997
PartiesRamiro F. GONZALES, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.

Theo Pat Henley (on appeal only), San Antonio, for appellant.

James F. Barlow, Dist. Atty., M. C. Gonzales, Asst. Dist. Atty., San Antonio, and Leon B. Douglas, State's Atty., Austin, for the State.

DICE, Commissioner.

The conviction is for burglary; the punishment, enhanced by reason of a prior conviction for an offense of like character, twelve years.

The indictment charged that the appellant did unlawfully, by force, break and enter a house occupied and controlled by Robert D. Perkins.

Robert D. Perkins, the prosecuting witness, lived at 1503 West Brady, in the city of San Antonio, with his wife and two teen-age children. On the day in question, Mrs. Perkins was the first to leave the house, around 7:30 a. m. Fifteen minutes later, the son and daughter left for school. At 10:30 a. m., Mr. Perkins left to go to his work. At such time, all windows and doors to the house were locked. At 3 p. m., the daughter, Lillian Louise, returned home from school and observed that a side door leading to the carport was open and the casing to the door had been broken. She then went inside and observed that certain items were missing from the house.

In the investigation which followed it was discovered that items of property of a value in excess of $600 had been taken from the house. Included in the missing property was a television set four feet long, three feet high, and two feet wide. Two Chinese figurines and a television lamp which had been kept on top of the television set were found on the floor.

Fingerprints were taken from the television lamp and the two figurines.

Outside the house was found a long tire mark leading from an oil slick in the carport, which mark was not present when Mr. Perkins left the house that morning.

Appellant was arrested a week later on a warrant for burglary and, following his arrest, fingerprints were obtained from him by Officer Hartman, of the San Antonio police department.

Officer Hartman, whose qualification as a fingerprint expert was shown, testified that he had compared appellant's fingerprints with the fingerprints taken from the two figurines and television lamp and found that two of the prints on one of the figurines were identical to prints from two of appellant's fingers. The officer stated that one of the prints was of appellant's left thumb and the other print was of his right middle finger. He further stated that he was unable to identify a third print taken from the figurines or the prints taken from the television lamp.

It was shown by the...

Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI

Get Started for Free

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex
7 cases
  • Nelson v. State
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
    • February 6, 1974
    ...See also Le Blanc v. State, 424 S.W.2d 434 (Tex.Cr.App.1968); Rodriguez v. State, 419 S.W.2d 372 (Tex.Cr.App.1967); Gonzales v. State, 399 S.W.2d 360 (Tex.Cr.App.1966). Cf. Caudillo v. State, 167 Tex.Cr.R. 147, 318 S.W.2d 891 The evidence in this case is sufficient to warrant a finding that......
  • Phelps v. State, 59425
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
    • February 27, 1980
    ...for the presence of the defendant's fingerprints in a manner consistent with innocence. See, e. g., Mann, supra; Gonzales v. State, 399 S.W.2d 360 (Tex.Cr.App.1966). One of the most important factors to be considered in evaluating the sufficiency of fingerprint evidence is the extent to whi......
  • Wheat v. State
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Appeals
    • February 2, 1984
    ...Mann v. State, 420 S.W.2d 614 (Tex.Cr.App.1967); Rodriguez v. State, 419 S.W.2d 372 (Tex.Cr.App.1967); Gonzales v. State, 399 S.W.2d 360 (Tex.Cr.App.1966); Briones v. State, 363 S.W.2d 466 (Tex.Cr.App.1963). In testing the sufficiency of the evidence in a case relying entirely on circumstan......
  • Postell v. State, 01-82-00622-CR
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Appeals
    • December 1, 1983
    ...in a manner consistent with innocence. See, e.g., Mann [v. State, 420 S.W.2d 614 (Tex.Cr.App.1967) ], supra; Gonzales v. State, 399 S.W.2d 360 (Tex.Cr.App.1966). In the case at bar, appellant's conviction rests solely upon circumstantial evidence, and in order to sustain the conviction, the......
  • Get Started for Free