Heck v. State
| Decision Date | 10 April 1974 |
| Docket Number | No. 48146,48146 |
| Citation | 507 S.W.2d 737 |
| Parties | Daniel E. HECK, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee. |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
C. David Evans, San Antonio, for appellant.
Ted Butler, Dist. Atty., Charles Felder, and Richard D. Woods, Asst. Dist. Attys., San Antonio, and Jim D. Vollers, State's Atty., Austin, for the State.
DALLY, Commissioner.
The conviction is for the possession of marihuana; the punishment, imprisonment for three years. The appellant waived a jury trial and was tried before the Court on a plea of not guilty.
All of the grounds of error require a review of the facts. The State insists that nothing is presented for review because the transcription of the court reporter's notes was not timely filed.
The record reflects the following
Judgment was entered April 24, 1972
Motion for New Trial was overruled, Sentence was October 12, 1972
pronounced and Notice of Appeal was given
Notice that the record on appeal had been completed January 10, 1973
was mailed to the attorney of record
A certificate that the record was approved by the January 29, 1973
trial court, no objection having been made, is dated
January 29, 1973, but it bears no file mark
The transcriptions of the court reporter's notes and June 15, 1973
the appellant's brief on appeal were filed
The trial court granted a motion to extend the time June 21, 1973
for the filing of the appellant's brief to June 18
1973
The Court entered an order refusing to grant a new July 20, 1973
trial and ordered the record transmitted to the
Court of Criminal Appeals
The trial court entered an order granting appellant's July 23, 1973
motion to have the transcription of the court
reporter's notes included in the record on appeal
The trial court entered an order stating the Hearing held
appellant and counsel were present and reciting December 6, 1973
that the briefs had been considered and refused
to grant a new trial and ordered the record Order entered
transmitted to the Court of Criminal Appeals December 14, 1973
Record filed in the Court of Criminal Appeals December 20,1973
The State relies primarily upon Conerly v. State, 412 S.W.2d 909 (Tex.Cr.App.1967) where this Court said:
'Appellant's motion for extension of time to file a statement of facts . . . filed after the record on appeal had been approved by the court--without objection, and filed with the clerk, came too late.'
However, the procedural facts in Conerly v. State, supra, were different. There, defense counsel had been notified of the completion of the record on October 12, 1966, and the record was approved by the trial court on October 28, 1966. On November 25, 1966, a motion for extension of time to file a statement of facts on appeal was filed. The record reflected that 'No action appears to have been taken by the trial court on . . . the motion . . .' In the case before us the trial court, by his order of July 23, 1973, specifically granted appellant's motion to have the transcription of the court reporter's notes included in the record on appeal.
Article 40.09, Section 3, Vernon's Ann.C.C.P. provides in part that:
'. . . The times herein provided for filing transcription of the notes of the reporter may be extended by the court for good cause shown, and the court shall have the power, in term time or vacation, on application for good cause to extend for as many times as deemed necessary the time for preparation and filing of the transcription, and the approval of the record after the expiration of the time provided by law for its approval shall be sufficient proof that the time for filing the transcription was properly extended, and the transcription so filed shall be construed as having been filed within the time required by law.'
We find the trial court's order of July 23, 1973, directing that the transcription of the court reporter's notes be included in the record on appeal done long before the appellate record was transmitted to this Court constituted a supplemental approval of the record. That order, so construed, is under the statute sufficient proof that the time for filing the transcription was properly extended and the transcription so filed shall be construed as having been filed within the time required by law.
In seven grounds of error, briefed together by appellant, he claims that his warrantless arrest and subsequent search were unlawful and that it was error to admit into evidence the marihuana seized as a result of the search. A discussion of these complaints requires a short recitation of the facts.
Appellant Heck, along with two or three other persons, arrived at the Hilltop, a 'Dance Hall-Restaurant' in Bexar County, on the evening of November 27, 1971. He brought with him a bottle of whiskey. a uniformed security officer, Craig Mecke, noticed that appellant was 'a little unsteady of step' as he entered. Appellant and his companions ordered some soft drink setups, and Mecke said he saw appellant leave his table to get some beer. Larry McCraken, an off-duty City of San Antonio police officer who was present on the evening in question, testified that appellant became boisterous and was talking very loudly to a waitress. After a discussion with a waitress, Mecke and McCraken went to appellant's table. Mecke asked to see appellant's identification, and asked...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cotton v. State
...(Tex.Cr.App.1981); Annis v. State, 578 S.W.2d 406 (Tex.Cr.App.1979); Balli v. State, 530 S.W.2d 123 (Tex.Cr.App.1975); Heck v. State, 507 S.W.2d 737 (Tex.Cr.App.1974); Rangel v. State, 502 S.W.2d 152 (Tex.Cr.App.1973);(b) bloodshot eyes:Annis, supra; Rangel, supra; Vaughn v. State, 493 S.W.......
-
Miles v. State
...the presence or view of the person making the arrest as required by Art. 14.01(a)," citizen arrest was illegal). 66. Heck v. State, 507 S.W.2d 737, 740 (Tex. Crim.App.1974) ("Being drunk in a public place is a breach of the 67. Romo v. State, 577 S.W.2d 251, 252-53 (Tex.Crim.App.1979); McEa......
-
State v. Eriksen
...46.61.502. I believe we should join courts in other jurisdictions in recognizing DUI as a breach of the peace. E.g., Heck v. State, 507 S.W.2d 737 (Tex.Crim.App.1974); State ex rel. State v. Gustke, 205 W.Va. 72, 81, 516 S.E.2d 283 (1999). Such a ruling would be consistent with the Restatem......
-
Harris v. State
...lawful irrespective of the existence of exigent circumstances. King v. State, 166 Tex.Cr.R. 231, 312 S.W.2d 501 (1958); Heck v. State, 507 S.W.2d 737 (Tex.Cr.App.1974); Warrick v. State, 634 S.W.2d 707 (Tex.Cr.App.1982). The ground of error is By ground of error four in both convictions, ap......