Hollins v. State, 40083
| Decision Date | 08 February 1967 |
| Docket Number | No. 40083,40083 |
| Citation | 411 S.W.2d 366 |
| Parties | Johnnie HOLLINS, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee. |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Maurice U. Westerfeld, Houston, for appellant.
Carol S. Vance, Dist. Atty., James C. Brough, Phyllis Bell and Alvin A. Horne, Asst. Dist. Attys., Houston, Leon B. Douglas, State's Atty., Austin, for the State.
The offense is felony theft; the punishment, enhanced by two prior convictions for felonies less than capital, life.
Trial was before a jury on a plea of not guilty. The jury having found appellant guilty, evidence was heard by the court including proof of the allegations of the indictment as to the prior convictions, and punishment was assessed at life.
Four grounds of error are presented.
The first relates to the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the jury's verdict.
The indictment alleged the theft of an automobile from John Wigzell on or about October 7, 1965. The state's evidence reflects the following:
Mr. Wigzell parked his car at a downtown location at 1:15 P.M. Twenty-five minutes later he returned to the place where he had left the car and it was gone. He immediately notified a police officer who was in the next block. The officer called by radio to report the car stolen and received reply that the automobile described had been involved in an automobile accident several blocks away. Mr. Wigzell proceeded to the scene of the accident by taxi where he found his automobile and saw appellant.
Appellant was identified as the driver and only occupant of the automobile involved in the accident by the driver of the other car involved in said accident; by a bystander and by a police officer wo reached the scene before appellant had time to get out of the car.
Appellant left the scene without communicating with anyone. He was arrested a block away from the scene by the officer who saw him abandon the car. He made no explanation of his possession of the automobile.
Mr. Wigzell testified that he had never seen appellant prior to the time his automobile, of the value of more than $50, was taken and had not given him permission to take it.
The unexplained possession of recently stolen property is sufficient to authorize a jury to convict for theft of such property. Bryant v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 397 S.W.2d 445; Wall v. State, 167 Tex.Cr.R. 634, 322 S.W.2d 641; 5 Branch's Ann.P.C.2d, Sec. 2650; 55 Tex.Jur.2d 480, Sec. 214.
The second ground of error...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hammond v. State
...457 S.W.2d 279; Rodriguez v. State Tex.Cr.App., 419 S.W.2d 372; Bowers v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 414 S.W.2d 929; Hollins v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 411 S.W.2d 366. Appellant contends that there is a fatal variance between the allegations in the indictment and the proof relative to the name of the ......
-
Beardsley v. State
...617 S.W.2d 255, 258 (Tex.Crim.App.1981). In these cases, the appellant was, at a minimum, driving the car, e.g., Hollins v. State, 411 S.W.2d 366 (Tex.Crim.App.1967); removing parts from the engine; e.g., Johnson v. State, 476 S.W.2d 324 (Tex.Crim.App.1972); or attempting to sell the car, e......
-
Henry v. State
...the court's charge as required by Articles 36.14 and 36.15, V.A.C.C.P., in the record. Nothing is presented for review. Hollins v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 411 S.W.2d 366; Smith v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 415 S.W.2d 206; Seefurth v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 422 S.W.2d In his ninth ground of error appella......
-
Ellard v. State
...the telephone number given the gun dealer was that of the telephone in a house in Houston occupied by appellant. In Hollins v. State, 411 S.W.2d 366 (Tex.Cr.App.1967), it is said: 'The unexplained possession of recently stolen property is sufficient to authorize a jury to convict for theft ......