Hickman v. State
| Decision Date | 30 March 1977 |
| Docket Number | No. 53045,53045 |
| Citation | 548 S.W.2d 736 |
| Parties | Wally HICKMAN, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee. |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
DALLY, Commissioner.
This is an appeal from a conviction for the offense of aggravated robbery; the punishment, enhanced by two prior felony convictions, is imprisonment for life.
This conviction must be reversed because there is no evidence to show that appellant's second previous felony conviction was for an offense committed after the first previous felony conviction became final.
The indictment alleged that prior to February 20, 1975, the alleged date of the commission of the primary offense, the appellant had been, on November 2, 1962, in Cause No. 2827-B in the 104th District Court of Taylor County, convicted for the felony offense of burglary, and that, after the conviction in Cause No. 2827-B had become final appellant committed the offense of burglary and was convicted for that offense on June 23, 1964, in Cause No. 9926-A in the 42nd District Court of Taylor County.
V.T.C.A. Penal Code, Section 12.42(d), provides "If it be shown on the trial of any felony offense that the defendant has previously been finally convicted of two felony offenses, and the second previous felony conviction is for an offense that occurred subsequent to the first previous conviction having become final, on conviction he shall be punished by confinement in the Texas Department of Corrections for life." (Emphasis added.)
V.T.C.A. Penal Code, Section 12.42(d), requires the State to prove that the accused's second previous felony conviction was committed after the first previous conviction became final. Wiggins v. State, 539 S.W.2d 142 (Tex.Cr.App.1976). This has also been the consistent holding of this Court under our former Penal Code; Article 63, V.A.P.C. (1925). See e. g., Rogers v. State, 168 Tex.Cr.R. 306, 325 S.W.2d 697 (1959); Lee v. State, 400 S.W.2d 909 (Tex.Cr.App.1966); Hutchinson v. State, 481 S.W.2d 881 (Tex.Cr.App.1972); Kessler v. State, 514 S.W.2d 260 (Tex.Cr.App.1974); Tyra v. State, 534 S.W.2d 695 (Tex.Cr.App.1976).
The State introduced the judgment and sentence for each of the two prior felony convictions alleged in the indictment. The appellant's conviction for the offense of burglary in Cause No. 9926-A was final on June 23, 1964; therefore, this conviction was final before the commission of the primary offense which occurred on February 20, 1975. Appellant's conviction for burglary in Cause No. 2827-B was final on November 2, 1962; however, the record does not show when the offense in Cause No. 9926-A was committed. Therefore,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ex parte Granger
...on remand would have to be decided by a jury as well. E.g., Ellison v. State, 432 S.W.2d 955, at 957 (Tex.Cr.App.1968); Hickman v. State, 548 S.W.2d 736 (Tex.Cr.App.1977). And because prior to the addition of subsection (b) to Article 44.29, V.A.C.C.P., see Acts 1987, 70th Leg., ch. 179, p.......
-
Ex Parte Carl Eddie Miller, Applicant.
...v. State, 604 S.W.2d 113, 116 (Tex.Crim.App.1980); Williams v. State, 596 S.W.2d 903, 904 (Tex.Crim.App.1980); Hickman v. State, 548 S.W.2d 736, 737 (Tex.Crim.App.1977); Johnson v. State, 784 S.W.2d 413, 414–15 (Tex.Crim.App.1990). 41. See Ex parte Daigle, 848 S.W.2d at 692; Ex parte Felton......
-
Ex parte Williams
...made this a "no evidence" case, a violation of due process, cited Murchison and set aside the entire conviction. See Hickman v. State, 548 S.W.2d 736 (Tex.Cr.App.1977). Here again this was merely a collateral attack upon the insufficiency of the evidence. The record was not totally devoid o......
-
Stokes v. Procunier, 83-2481
...after conviction for the first had become final is an essential element required for the enhanced punishment. See Hickman v. State, 548 S.W.2d 736 (Tex.Crim.App.1977); Wiggins v. State, 539 S.W.2d 142 (Tex.Crim.App.1976). Yet the State failed to introduce any evidence of the date Stokes com......