Johnson v. State
| Decision Date | 08 February 1967 |
| Docket Number | No. 40110,40110 |
| Parties | Franklin JOHNSON, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee. |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Thomas H. Dent, Galveston, for appellant.
Carol S. Vance, Dist. Atty., James C. Brough and Robert Floyd, Asst. Dist. Attys., Houston, Leon B. Douglas, State's Atty., Austin, for the State.
The offense is felony theft; the punishment, five years.
Under the indictment alleging the primary offense of felony theft and two prior non-capital convictions alleged for enhancement, appellant was found guilty under a charge submitting the primary offense only. His first ground of error is that the court erred in overruling his motion to quash the enhancement counts of the indictment and his motion in limine requesting that State's counsel be instructed not to allude to the prior convictions. Since the prior convictions were not submitted to the jury in the court's charge and since no bad faith on the part of the prosecutor is shown, no error appears. When appellant testified, the prior convictions became admissible for impeachment.
Appellant's next ground of error is that he was denied due process because the prosecutor exercised peremptory challenges to Negro members of the jury panel. From his examination of the panel counsel developed the fact that there were seven members who gave their racial identification as being Negro, but there is no showing other than statement of counsel that the seven were stricken. Be this as it may, the Supreme Court of the United States in Swain v. State of Alabama, 380 U.S. 202, 85 S.Ct. 824, 13 L.Ed.2d 759, said, , and '(w)ith these considerations in mind, we cannot hold that the striking of Negroes in a particular case is a denial of equal protection of the laws.' See Whitney v. State, 43 Tex.Cr.R. 197, 63 S.W. 879, and United States ex rel. Dukes v. Sain, 7 Cir., 297 F.2d 799.
Appellant's next ground error is that the evidence is insufficient to support the conviction. Accident Investigator Gartman of the Houston Police testified that shortly before midnight on the night in question he heard the tires of an automobile 'screeching' as it approached the point where he was on duty. He stated that he brought the automobile being drven by appellant to a halt, at which time he observed a pistol on the seat beside appellant, and placed him under arrest. He...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Tezeno v. State
...v. State, 462 S.W.2d 9 (Tex.Cr.App.1969) rev'd. on other grounds, 403 U.S. 947, 91 S.Ct. 2289, 29 L.Ed. 858 (1971); Johnson v. State, 411 S.W.2d 363 (Tex.Cr.App.1967). Appellant's ninth ground of error is overruled. The thrust of appellant's motion to quash the panel was that he was neither......
-
Turner v. State
...fast as he was. His further testimony is clear that there was no systematic exclusion of black persons from the jury. In Johnson v. State, Tex.Cr.App.,411 S.W.2d 363, we recently discussed the propriety of the State's challenging black members of the Appellant's third ground of error, if we......
-
Reese v. State, 44988
...759 (1965); Hardin v. State, 475 S.W.2d 254 (Tex.Cr.App.1972); Walker v. State, 454 S.W.2d 415 (Tex.Cr.App.1970); Johnson v. State, 411 S.W.2d 363 (Tex.Cr.App.1967). Finally, appellant contends there was an 'inexcusable delay in processing the appeal of this The case was tried on March 18 a......
-
Walker v. State, 42711
...case is not a denial of equal protection of the laws. Swain v. Alabama, 380 U.S. 202, 85 S.Ct. 824, 13 L.Ed.2d 759; Johnson v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 411 S.W.2d 363. Appellant's third ground of error is The fourth ground of error contends that the trial court erred in not appointing counsel pr......