Hill v. State
| Decision Date | 31 May 1978 |
| Docket Number | No. 2,No. 58035,58035,2 |
| Citation | 568 S.W.2d 338 |
| Parties | James Glynn HILL, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Larry E. Meyer, Houston, for appellant.
Before ONION, P. J., and DALLY and VOLLERS, JJ.
The appellant waived a trial by jury and entered a plea of guilty before the court to the offense of robbery, a violation of V.T.C.A. Penal Code, Sec. 29.02. The punishment is imprisonment for 10 years.
The appellant asserts that the indictment is fundamentally defective. He says that since the property which it is alleged he took or intended to take in the course of committing theft was not particularly described, he was not on notice of the offense with which he was charged, and he cannot later plead the judgment in bar of prosecution for the same offense.
The indictment alleges that the appellant, while in the course of committing theft of property of the complainant with the intent to obtain and maintain control of the property intentionally and knowingly threatened and placed the complainant in fear of imminent bodily injury and death.
The offense of robbery in the new penal code is defined in language entirely different from that used in the former penal code, and the cases decided under the former penal code cited by the appellant are of no aid in deciding whether his contentions have merit.
The appellant's argument that the indictment was insufficient to put him on notice of the offense with which he was charged and was insufficient to permit him to later plead the judgment in bar of prosecution for the same offense we find to be without merit. Even if a motion to quash the indictment had been timely filed and urged, the indictment, which alleges the name of the person whom it is alleged the appellant robbed, gives sufficient notice without particularly describing the property he allegedly took or intended to take in the course of committing theft.
V.T.C.A. Penal Code, Sec. 29.02(a)(2), under which the indictment in the instant case was drawn, provides:
The term "in the course of committing theft" means conduct that occurs in an attempt to commit, during the commission, or in immediate flight after the attempt or commission of theft. V.T.C.A. Penal Code, Sec. 29.01(1).
In prosecutions for robbery under the new penal code, it has been held that it is unnecessary to allege the elements of theft. Earl v. State, 514 S.W.2d 273 (Tex.Cr.App.1974). Since the ownership of the property which it is alleged a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
DeVaughn v. State
...are merely evidentiary and need not be pled, citing as authority Hightower v. State, 629 S.W.2d 920 (Tex.Cr.App.1981); Hill v. State, 568 S.W.2d 338 (Tex.Cr.App.1978); Davis v. State, 532 S.W.2d 626 (Tex.Cr.App.1976). Finally, the State urges that the law of motions to quash as it applies t......
-
Thomas v. Davis
...alleged all the elements required, and counsel was not deficient for failing to file a motion to quash the indictment. See Hill v. State, 568 S.W.2d 338, 339 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978).9. The jury charge contained all the elements required for the offense of aggravated robbery.10. Counsel was n......
-
Palm v. State, 67133
...Palm * * * did while in the course of committing theft of property owned by ...." This same contention was rejected in Hill v. State, 568 S.W.2d 338 (Tex.Cr.App.1978). Appellant next accuses the prosecutor of prosecutorial vindictiveness. This contention is without merit. The record shows t......
-
Williams v. State, C14-81-021-CR
...Robinson v. State, 596 S.W.2d 130 (Tex.Cr.App.1980); Ex Parte Lucas, 574 S.W.2d 162 (Tex.Crim.App.1978); Hill v. State, 568 S.W.2d 338 (Tex.Cr.App.1978). Accordingly, appellant's fifth and sixth grounds of error are overruled and the conviction is ...