Hardage v. State, 53633
| Citation | 552 S.W.2d 837 |
| Decision Date | 29 June 1977 |
| Docket Number | No. 53633,53633 |
| Parties | Raymond Warren HARDAGE, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee. |
| Court | Court of Appeals of Texas. Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas |
DAVIS, Commissioner.
Appeal is taken from a conviction for burglary of a habitation. Punishment was assessed by the jury at ninety-nine years.
In all six of appellant's grounds of error, attack is made on the sufficiency of the evidence to support the conviction.
Circumstantial evidence is relied upon for conviction, and the court instructed the jury on the law relative to same. The State argues that the conviction is supported by evidence placing appellant in unexplained possession of property recently stolen from the burglarized premises.
Mrs. Angelina Landry testified that as she was "driving up" to her house on 11th Street in Port Arthur on the morning of October 3, 1974, she noticed that "my air conditioner was pushed out of my window." Upon entry of the house, Mrs. Landry determined that the air conditioning unit was on the floor inside the house where it appeared to have been pushed by the burglar in gaining entry. "Things were scattered around" in the house, "drawers were pulled out of the dresser," and a closet door which was shut when she left home had been opened. Mrs. Landry determined that a .410 gauge shotgun and case, a thirty-thirty caliber Winchester and the case it was in, a Panasonic tape recorder and the light to go with it, "my little boy's eye glasses," and some coins were missing.
Subsequently, Mrs. Landry saw a picture of appellant in the paper, recognized him as a person she had seen "around the house" and decided to go to the Port Arthur Police Department "to see if the stuff that he picked up if any of the items recovered" by police might be items that belonged to her.
All items taken in the burglary with the exception of the coins were at the police station. Identifications were made of all articles taken except the "boy's glasses," which had been altered by removal of the nose pieces, the lenses and ear pieces. In spite of these changes, Mrs. Landry testified, "they looked like my boy's glasses." The serial number of the rifle was obtained from the store where it had been purchased and it matched the number on the rifle at the police station. The articles had been altered in some manner, pieces of red carpet had been placed on the tape player and light, the writing, "R.H. plus E.H." appeared on the tape player, the shotgun had been sawed off and the scope had been removed from the rifle. Despite these changes, Mrs. Landry positively identified all articles as having been taken from her home in the burglary except the eye glasses.
On May 19, 1975, police officers searched the premises located at 2323 12th Street in Port Arthur where appellant "lived with his mother and his wife." Officer Wiley testified that appellant's mother let them in the house and "took us back to Raymond's (appellant's) room." Wiley stated that upon entry of the room, Appellant and his wife were in the room. A .22 pistol was removed from appellant's pocket. All of the items identified by Mrs. Landry at the police station were found in appellant's room except the rifle, which was found in a car in the garage on the premises. The shotgun and case were found "underneath a chest of drawers" in appellant's room in a position where they were not visible. Appellant offered no explanation to officers regarding his possession of the items in question at the time of the search, nor did he offer any evidence at trial.
Despite the fact that appellant sets forth a number of grounds of error attacking the sufficiency of the evidence, a review of same reflects that his contentions can be narrowed to the argument that possession of stolen goods seven months after the articles were taken in a burglary does not constitute possession of ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Eldridge v. State
...the defendant's possession of a stolen gun three years from the date of the theft has been held to be "recent". Hardage v. State, 552 S.W.2d 837 (Tex.Cr.App.1977). Whether possession of a pistol one and one-half years after the theft was recent was held to be a question for the jury in Yiel......
-
Seals v. State, 04-81-00044-CR
...possession of some of the property recently stolen from the house is sufficient to support a conviction for burglary. Hardage v. State, 552 S.W.2d 837 (Tex.Cr.App.1977). While unexplained possession of recently stolen property is a circumstance of guilt, it is not conclusive. In the instant......
-
State v. Sapiel
...33 days subsequent to burglary); State v. Gove, supra (interval of 59 days before theft items discovered). See also Hardage v. State, 552 S.W.2d 837 (Tex.Crim.1977) (discovery of tape recorder seven months after its theft); Graham v. State, 6 Md.App. 458, 251 A.2d 616 (1969) (two months suf......
-
Louis v. State
...the cases will vary according to such factors as the ease with which such property can be transferred). See Hardage v. State, 552 S.W.2d 837, 840 (Tex.Cr.App.1977). We hold that this very recent unexplained possession, together with the fact of the similarity of appearance and the fact that......