Goodrum v. State
| Decision Date | 09 May 1962 |
| Docket Number | No. 34601,34601 |
| Citation | 172 Tex.Crim. 449,358 S.W.2d 120 |
| Parties | Clarence GOODRUM, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee. |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Howard O. Lake, Houston, for appellant.
Frank Briscoe, Dist. Atty., Walter A. Carr, Erwin G. [172 TEXCRIM 450] Ernst, Assts. Dist. Atty., Houston, and Leon B. Douglas, State's Atty., Austin, for the State.
The offense is robbery by assault, with a prior conviction for a felony of like character alleged for enhancement; the punishment, life imprisonment.
Appellant's identity as being the same person who had been previously convicted of the offense of burglary in Cause No. 9042 in Criminal District Court No. 4 of Harris County was established.
John Kilgore, 16 years of age, testified that on the date in question he was working alone in the L. & J. Grocery; that appellant and another individual entered the store and asked for change for a dollar bill in order to make a telephone call; that they made the call from a pay phone in the store and departed; that appellant soon returned alone and asked to see the watches that were in a glass case on the counter; that while he was producing the watches appellant announced that it was a holdup and demanded all the money in the cash register; that appellant kept one hand thrust in his pocket; that he was in fear at the time he gave appellant some $70.00 from the cash register; that appellant forced him to lie down on the floor, face down; and that appellant stepped over him to get the watches and other merchandise.
He further testified that after appellant left the store he called the owner of the store and the sheriff's department and that he later identified appellant in a police lineup.
Officers from the sheriff's department testified that after obtaining descriptions from Kilgore they arrested three individuals in an automobile shortly after the holdup, that one of the three was identified as appellant's companion by Kilgore, and that merchandise stolen from the store was found in his possession. The officers further testified that after conversing with the three individuals under arrest and, acting upon information given by them, they went to appellant's house and found him standing in a closet of a rear bedroom behind the clothes.
Appellant did not testify or offer any evidence in his own behalf, and his sole contention on appeal is that the evidence is insufficient to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Rayford v. State
...and that one may be robbed of property not taken from his person. Ibeck v. State, 112 Tex.Cr.R. 287, 16 S.W.2d 232; Goodrum v. State, 172 Tex.Cr.R. 449, 358 S.W.2d 120. Also, we find no merit in appellant's contention that Mrs. Salverino was not put in fear of her life or bodily injury. Cra......
-
Goodrum v. Beto
...not guilty in the district court of Harris County, Texas. The conviction was affirmed by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals in Goodrum v. State, 358 S.W.2d 120. Petitioner seeks federal habeas corpus relief, Title 28, U.S.C.A., Section 2241 et seq., on the following 1. Alleged ineffective ......
-
Ellingsworth v. State
...and violence from an employee in a grocery store is robbery.' Wright v. State, 468 S.W.2d 422 (Tex.Cr.App.1971); Goodrum v. State, 172 Tex.Cr.R. 449, 358 S.W.2d 120 (1962).' We reject appellant's contention that the court erred in overruling his motion to quash the Appellant contends that t......
-
Bouie v. State
...than that of the theft statutes, Arts. 1410 et seq., V.A.P.C. Barfield v. State, 137 Tex.Cr.R. 256, 129 S.W.2d 310; Goodrum v. State, 172 Tex.Cr.R. 449, 358 S.W.2d 120; Ford v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 502 S.W.2d 160. We have frequently said that any right to possession by the victim superior to......