Gooden v. State
Decision Date | 27 November 1940 |
Docket Number | No. 21273.,21273. |
Citation | 145 S.W.2d 177 |
Parties | GOODEN v. STATE. |
Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Appeal from District Court, Montgomery County; E. T. Murphy, Judge.
Fred Gooden, alias Booker Gooden, was convicted of burglary of a store, and he appeals.
Reversed and remanded.
R. G. Allen, of Houston (King C. Haynie, of Houston, of counsel on appeal only), for appellant.
W. C. McClain, Dist. Atty., and Ned G. Wallace, Asst. Dist. Atty., both of Conroe, and Lloyd W. Davidson, State's Atty., of Austin, for the State.
Appellant was convicted of the burglary of a store owned and controlled by Roy Jackson in the town of Montgomery, Texas, and under further allegations of two prior convictions he was sentenced to the State penitentiary for life.
The indictment, in its charging part, alleges that appellant "in the County of Montgomery and State of Texas, did by force, threats and fraud, break and enter a house then and there occupied and controlled by J. Roy Jackson, without the consent of the said J. Roy Jackson, and with the intent then and there to fraudulently take therefrom corporeal personal property therein being, and then and there belonging to the said J. Roy Jackson," etc.
It will be noted that the present charged offense was burglary with intent to commit theft.
The trial court in its charge defined the offense of burglary in the terms of the statute, substantially stated as the entry of a house by means of force, threats or fraud with the intent to commit a felony or the crime of theft.
Again he instructed the jury that "the indictment in this case having charged that the burglarious entry was made with the intent to commit a felony or the crime of theft, before you would be warranted in finding a verdict of guilty you must be satisfied from the evidence, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the entry was made with the intent to commit a felony or the crime of theft."
Again the court's charge says: "Now, bearing in mind the foregoing definition, if you believe from the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant, on or about the 7th day of March 1940, as alleged, in the County of Montgomery and State of Texas, by force did enter the house of J. Roy Jackson as charged in the indictment, with the intent to commit a felony or the crime of theft, you will find him guilty of the crime of burglary, and so say by your verdict, and assess his punishment at confinement in the penitentiary not less than two nor more than twelve years."
It is to be noted however that no objections nor exceptions to the court's charge were taken nor filed. It is contended by appellant that for the trial court to authorize a conviction herein on a burglary with intent to commit a felony, when such was not charged in the indictment, was fundamental error, and an exception to the court's charge was not necessary.
That the giving of such a charge was error finds support in many decisions of this court. In the Williams case, Williams v. State, 53 Tex.Cr.R. 2, 108 S.W. 371, 372, Judge Davidson said: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Doyle v. State
...generation after generation: in Menefee v. State, 129 Tex.Cr.R. 375, 87 S.W.2d 478, 481 (1935); the Gooden cases (Gooden v. State, 140 Tex.Cr.R. 351, 145 S.W.2d 179 (1940) ) supra, in the forties; by Judge Woodley, for the Court, in Garza v. State, 162 Tex.Cr.R. 655, 288 S.W.2d 785 (1956). ......
-
Sattiewhite v. State
...reasoning of the second Moore, supra, was repudiated, Judge Graves recanting his own opinion and distinguishing the principle followed in Gooden, supra, in note 3, ". . . The allegation of an offense is complete when a failure to stop is set forth; and the failure to render aid is but anoth......
-
Cumbie v. State
...substitutes a theory of the offense completely different from the theory alleged in the indictment. See, e. g., Gooden v. State, 140 Tex.Cr.R. 347, 145 S.W.2d 177 (1940) and Ross v. State, 487 S.W.2d 745 (Tex.Cr.App.1972) (indictment alleged breaking and entering by force, threats, and frau......
-
Shivers v. State
... ... "The same conviction cannot be twice used for the purpose of enhancing a penalty. This has been so frequently held by this court and in recent cases that we do not consider it necessary to here discuss the matter or cite authorities." ... In Gooden v. State, 140 Tex.Cr.R. 347, 145 S.W.2d 179 (1940), the defendant's punishment had been affixed at life imprisonment pursuant to Art. 63, Vernon's Ann.P.C. (1925). In reversing that case the court stated: ... "It is shown that at a time prior to this trial this defendant had been tried for a ... ...