Handy v. State
| Decision Date | 20 April 1904 |
| Citation | 80 S.W. 526 |
| Parties | HANDY v. STATE. |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Appeal from District Court, Shelby County; Tom C. Davis, Judge.
Jim Handy was convicted of burglary and appeals. Affirmed.
Howard Martin, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
Appellant was convicted of the burglary of a private residence at night, the punishment assessed being confinement in the penitentiary for a term of 30 years. The proof shows that J. T. Strong, with his family, resided in the house burglarized, and were actually using the same as their private residence. However, the proof shows that Strong and his family were absent on a visit at the time the house was burglarized; that no one was in the house at the time; that he and his family left the premises on Friday, and did not return until Monday following; and that the house was entered by appellant on Saturday night. Appellant contends that the court erred in submitting to the jury the law applicable to the burglary of a private residence under this state of facts. His contention is that the house was not "occupied and actually used," at the time of the offense, by Strong and family. Article 845c, White's Ann. Pen. Code, addended 1901 (being Act 26th Leg. p. 318, c. 178), provides: "The term `private residence' mentioned in articles 839a, 845a and 845b of this chapter shall be construed to mean any building or room occupied and actually used at the time of the offense by any person or persons as a place of residence." We hold that it is not necessary that the family be personally present at the very time it is burglarized in order to constitute the offense burglary of a private residence. It is sufficient if it is actually used at the time as a private residence, within the meaning of this article, though at the time it was burglarized the family may be temporarily absent.
Appellant insists that the verdict of the jury assessing the penalty at 30 years' confinement in the penitentiary is cruel and excessive. "The punishment for burglary of a private residence shall be by imprisonment in the penitentiary for any term of years not less than five." Article 845a, White's Ann. Pen. Code (Acts 26th Leg. p. 318, c. 178). The Constitution (article 1, § 13) provides, "Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel or unusual punishment inflicted." The Legislature has seen proper to provide that the punishment for burglary of a private residence at night should not be...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hall v. State
...R. 325, 87 S. W. 1155; Marks v. State, 51 Tex. Cr. R. 218, 101 S. W. 805; Hopper v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 105 S. W. 816; Handy v. State, 46 Tex. Cr. R. 406, 80 S. W. 526; Reyes v. State, 51 Tex. Cr. R. 420, 102 S. W. 421; Mays v. State, 50 Tex. Cr. R. 391, 97 S. W. 703. See, also, Words & P......
- Haynes v. State
-
Cooper v. State
... ... It is sufficient if it is actually used at the time as a private residence, within the meaning of this article, even though at the time it was burglarized the family was temporarily absent. Handy v. State, 46 Tex.Cr.R. 406, 80 S.W. 526; Warren v. State, 120 Tex.Cr.R. 58, 47 S.W.2d 288." ... Appellant argues that reversal of this case is required because, immediately after the selection of the jury, the court gave the jury certain initial general admonishments outside the ... ...
-
Smith v. State
... ... house its character as such, but it must be made to appear ... that such occupant left the house animo revertendi in order ... to constitute an unlawful breaking and entry of the house ... during such absence burglary. 4 R. C. L. 426, 427; 2 ... East's P. C. 496; Handy v. State, 46 Tex. Cr. R ... 406, 80 S.W. 526; State v. Mason et al., 74 Ohio St ... 65, 77 N.E. 283; Harrison v. State, 74 Ga. 801; ... State v. Meerchouse, 34 Mo. 344, 86 Am. Dec. 109 ... From ... the evidence in this case it appears that the house alleged ... to have been broken ... ...