Hamilton v. State
| Decision Date | 24 November 1965 |
| Docket Number | No. 38600,38600 |
| Citation | 397 S.W.2d 225 |
| Parties | Leonard HAMILTON, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee. |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Daylee Wiggins, Phillip Bordages, Beaumont, for appellant.
W. C. Lindsey, Dist. Atty., Ken Parker, Asst. Dist. Atty., Beaumont, and Leon B. Douglas, State's Atty., Austin, for the State.
DICE, Commissioner.
The conviction is for forgery; the punishment, enhanced under Art. 63, Vernon's Ann.P.C., by reason of two prior convictions for felonies less than capital, life imprisonment.
The indictment, in separate counts, charged that on or about the 21st day of September, 1964, the appellant did forge and pass as true an instrument of the tenor following:
---------------------------------------------------------------
"Travelers 79-254
------
915
"Bondified MONEY ORDER
"From Sam Brussard Date 9-19-65 305538726
---------------------- ----------------------
City &
"Address 3010 Jone St State Baton Rouge, La
---------------------------------------------------------------
"Pay
"To The
"Order Of Frank Terrell $91.65
----------------------------------------------------
"Do Not Pay Over One Hundred Dollars
"Amount THE SUM 91 DOLS 65 CTS Dollars
---------------------------------------------------------------
"Travelers Express Company, Inc
"First National Bank J. A. Densop, Treasurer
"Hudson, Wisconsin 39 No. 1064
"0915 0254:30 55387 26 JA"
"Use Ink--Void If Altered or Defaced"
---------------------------------------------------------------
It was also alleged that appellant had theretofore been convicted of two felonies less than capital, the first conviction being in the Criminal District Court of Jefferson County on November 23, 1959, in Cause No. 22308, for the offense of 'forgery and passing' and the second conviction in the same court on May 23, 1961, in Cause No. 23469, for the offense of burglary, committed after the prior judgment of conviction had become final.
The state's evidence shows that the witness Mrs. Wanda Meriwether was employed as a clerk at Landry's Drive In in the city of Beaumont. On the morning of September 19, 1964, when Mrs. Meriwether went to the store to open the business she discovered that the place had been burglarized and ninety-one blank 'Bondified' money orders were missing. She stated that the last three digits on the stolen money orders started at 710 and ran through 800.
It was shown that on September 21, 1964, one Alton Frazier Mack, Jr., went into the Gem package liquor store in the city of Beaumont and cashed a money order (state's exhibit 9) in the sum of $91.65, of the tenor set out in the indictment.
Mack, who was serving a three-year probated sentence for forgery of the endorsement of the money order in question, upon being called as a witness by the state, testified that on September 21, 1964, he met appellant at a club and appellant asked him if he knew where he could get a check cashed. When the witness stated that he believed he 'could,' appellant produced the money order (state's exhibit 9), which was 'already made out.' The witness related that after going to several liquor stores they went to the Gem Cut Rate Liquor Store, where he took the money order into the store and cashed it, after endorsing it on the back. He further related that after they left the store, appellant gave him $25 out of the proceeds.
It was further shown that on September 23, Officers Austin and Cole went to appellant's home around 6 a. m., with a warrant for his arrest upon a charge of forgery and passing a forged instrument. Appellant was placed under arrest and at such time the officers found under a mattress a number of blank money orders similar to those missing from Landry's Drive In. A check protector was also found under some clothes behind a dresser.
From his home, appellant was taken to the police station where, after being questioned, he made a written confession, which, however, was not introduced in evidence. Subsequent to giving the confession appellant was taken before a magistrate.
On the following day, September 24, two specimens of handwriting (state's exhibits 10 and 11) were given by appellant after being duly warned by Officer Gene Wilson that the same could be used against him.
Paul W. Hanson, questioned-document examiner for the State Department of Public Safety and a handwriting expert, testified that he had examined the handwriting on state's exhibits 9, 10, and 11, and that in his opinion the writing on the face of the money order (state's exhibit 9) was by the person who did the writing on state's exhibits 10 and 11.
Proof was made in the manner approved by this court by the introduction in evidence of certified copies of certain indictments, judgments, and sentences, together with authenticated prison records and comparison of fingerprints, that appellant had been convicted on November 23, 1959, in the Criminal District Court of Jefferson County, in Cause No. 22308, of the offense of forgery, and that thereafter, on May 23, 1961, he was convicted in the same court, in Cause No. 23469, of the offense of burglary. However, no proof was made by the state that the conviction in 1961 was for an offense committed after the 1959 conviction had become final.
The indictment for burglary, in Cause No. 23469, was returned on April 27, 1961, and charged that the offense was committed on or about the 31st day of December, 1960. An indictment for burglary may be presented within five years but not afterward. Art. 179, Vernon's Ann.C.C.P. Under the indictment, proof that the burglary was committed prior to the date of appellant's conviction for forgery on November 23, 1959, would support the conviction.
In the absence of proof that appellant's conviction for burglary in 1961 was for an offense committed after his conviction in 1959 for forgery, had become final, his punishment cannot be enhanced under Art. 63, supra. Rogers v. State, 168 Tex.Cr.R 306, 325 S.W.2d 697; Rogers v. State, 169 Tex.Cr.R. 239, 333 S.W.2d 383; Cowan v. State, 172 Tex.Cr.R. 183, 355 S.W.2d 521.
Appellant did not testify or offer any evidence in his behalf other than his testimony before the court in the jury's absence on the question of whether he voluntarily gave the two specimens of handwriting.
The issue of appellant's guilt of both forgery and passing as true the forged instrument was submitted to the jury upon a charge on the law...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Olson v. State
...exemplars. The inference is there, but the court did not discuss it. See Comment, 11 Tex.L.Rev. 127 (1933). Cf. Hamilton v. State, 397 S.W.2d 225 (Tex.Cr.App.1966); Key v. State, 149 Tex.Civ.App. 200, 192 S.W.2d 563, 566 (Tex.Civ.App.1946). It is obvious that the court utilized the waiver t......
-
Wheat v. State
...Tex.Cr.App., 394 S.W.2d 513; Jackson v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 395 S.W.2d 650; Ferrell v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 397 S.W.2d 86; Hamilton v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 397 S.W.2d 225; Lee v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 400 S.W.2d 909; Andrews v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 407 S.W.2d 507. See also Jones v. State, Tex.Cr......
-
Harrington v. State, 40849
...comparison of fingerprints that appellant had been convicted as alleged in the second paragraph of the indictment. See Hamilton v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 397 S.W.2d 225. Further, we reject the claim that Officer McCarley of the McKinney City Police Department was not shown to be qualified as a......
-
Rounsavall v. State
...confinement in the Texas Department of Corrections for a period of twelve years. See Lee v. State, Supra and Hamilton v. State, 397 S.W.2d 225 (Tex.Cr.App.1965). The judgment, as reformed, is Opinion approved by the court. DOUGLAS, Judge (concurring). The record reflects that the Honorable ......