Kinney v. State
| Decision Date | 13 January 1904 |
| Citation | 78 S.W. 225 |
| Parties | KINNEY v. STATE. |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Appeal from Tarrant County Court; R. F. Milam, Judge.
Kid Kinney was convicted of exhibiting a gaming table, and he appeals. Affirmed.
Howard Martin, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
Appellant was convicted of exhibiting a gaming table, and his punishment assessed at a fine of $100 and 40 days' confinement in the county jail; hence this appeal.
There is no statement of facts in the record, and only one bill of exceptions. This questions the action of the court taking into consideration in assessing the punishment the former convictions of appellant in other cases for similar offenses. The indictment charges appellant with the offense of unlawfully exhibiting a gaming table for the purpose of gaming, and then alleges that appellant had previously been legally convicted in the same court in causes Nos. 24,405, 24,259, and 24,260, being three in number, of the same offense charged in the indictment against appellant. This indictment seems to have been brought under article 1014, Pen. Code 1895, which authorizes an increase in punishment where appellant had previously been convicted of the same offense. This statute appears to have been upheld in Long v. State, 36 Tex. 6. However, that case was reversed because proof was admitted of other previous convictions when there was no allegation of such convictions in the indictment. And to the same effect see 1 Bishop's Cr. Law, 961; Bishop, Stat. Crimes, § 176. The authorities all appear to hold that the matter of punishment pertains to the remedy, and is no part of the definition of the offense. However, in order to enhance the punishment on account of previous convictions, this must be alleged and proven. We do not understand appellant in his bill of exceptions to set up the question of former jeopardy, or claim the indictment should have been quashed because it alleges convictions for the same offense. If it be conceded that appellant intended to raise this question on the indictment, still we do not believe it would have been well taken. The indictment alleges that he had been previously convicted in said causes of the same offense, and this follows the language of the statute. According to our interpretation of "the same offense" here means an offense of the same character, and not the same identical transaction. In the absence of a statement of facts or any bill showing that the other offenses were the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Dye v. Skeen
...People v. Butler, 3 Cowan, N.Y., 347; Arbuckle v. State, 132 Tex.Crim.R. 371, 105 S.W.2d 219; Long v. State, 36 Tex. 6; Kinney v. State, 45 Tex.Crim.R. 500, 78 S.W. 225, 79 S.W. 570; State v. Faull, 178 Wis. 66, 189 N.W. 274; Commonwealth v. Calio, 155 Pa.Super. 355, 38 A.2d 351; Commonweal......
-
Shivers v. State
... ... State, supra. The other conviction which was alleged was appellant's 1965 conviction for burglary in Cause No. 9614 in Brazos County. This conviction had previously been used to enhance punishment in Cause No. 9985 ... The seminal case on the subject is Kinney v. State, 45 Tex.Cr.R. 500, 79 S.W. 570 (1904). There it was stated: ... " ... Evidently it never was intended that prior offenses could thus be made to do double duty; that is, that prior cases could be used to enhance the punishment in any given case more than once. To give the statute such ... ...
-
Porier v. State, 56446
...Mullins v. State, 409 S.W.2d 869 (Tex.Cr.App.1966); Beyer v. State, 172 Tex.Cr.R. 279, 356 S.W.2d 436 (1962); Kinney v. State, 45 Tex.Cr.R. 500, 78 S.W. 225, 79 S.W. 570 (1904). It is well settled that former Article 63, supra, as passed by the Legislature, did not create an offense. In Mul......
-
Arbuckle v. State, 17709.
...the prior conviction was proved without being alleged and in the present case it was alleged without being proven. In Kinney's Case, 45 Tex.Cr.R. 500, 78 S.W. 225, 79 S.W. 570, 571, this court was again considering the necessary averments in an indictment to support proof authorizing enhanc......