Lee v. State, 44747
| Decision Date | 29 March 1972 |
| Docket Number | No. 44747,44747 |
| Citation | 478 S.W.2d 469 |
| Parties | Nathaniel Herman LEE, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee. |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Matkin, Ledbetter & Johnson by C. Michael Matkin, Houston, for appellant.
Carol S. Vance, Dist. Atty., Phyllis Bell and H. L. (Stu) Stewart, Asst. Dist. Attys., Houston, and Jim D. Vollers, State's Atty., Austin, for the State.
This is an appeal from a conviction for robbery by assault. The jury assessed the punishment at life.
The sufficiency of the evidence is not challenged. The record reflects that Jeanette Thompson, Margaret Conley and Herman Lee, the appellant, along with two others went to a small grocery store in Houston. Margaret Conley and the appellant, both armed with guns, went inside. L. T. Lee, the owner of the store, struggled with the appellant and the gun was fired several times. Margaret Conley shot the owner in the side. The appellant also suffered a gunshot wound. The robbers took approximately $500 from the store and left. The owner of the store was hospitalized for some two weeks because of his wound.
The appellant contends that the court erred in permitting an accomplice witness Jeanette Thompson to testify that she went to the grocery shore for the purpose of robbery over the objection that such was a presumption. We perceive no error.
Complaint is made that the prior criminal record of the appellant which showed three convictions for burglary was improperly admitted, because the record did not show that copies had been delivered to him before they were admitted. No such objection appears in the record and nothing is presented for review.
If an objection had been made, there is still no showing that the appellant was unduly surprised by the evidence. No error is shown. See Denham v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 428 S.W.2d 814.
Lastly, appellant contends that he was denied effective assistance of counsel, because the record does not show that counsel was appointed ten days prior to trial and no waiver of such time was filed under Article 26.04, V.A.C.C.P.
The appellant does not show that he was indigent or that he was entitled to appointment of counsel and the ten days time for preparation. See Schafer v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 436 S.W.2d 352.
The record reflects that the Honorable Bob Robertson had represented the appellant prior to the date of the appointment. How long he had represented him is not shown. The trial was one day after the appointment. The docket sheet shows that the appellant asked for Robertson to be appointed 'for...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Moreno v. State
...to prepare. In Meeks v. State, 456 S.W.2d 938 (Tex.Cr.App.1970); Gray v. State, 475 S.W.2d 246 (Tex.Cr.App.1971); and Lee v. State, 478 S.W.2d 469 (Tex.Cr.App.1972), the records showed court-appointed counsel had had sufficient time to prepare for trial and the appointment, within ten days ......
-
Henson v. State, 50702
...State, 500 S.W.2d 533; Houston v. State, 490 S.W.2d 851; Crothers v. State, 480 S.W.2d 642; cf. Carter v. State, 480 S.W.2d 735; Lee v. State, 478 S.W.2d 469; Gray v. State, 475 S.W.2d 246; Meeks v. State, 456 S.W.2d The record reflects no properly executed waiver of the statutory ten day p......
-
Carter v. State
...less inclined to reverse under the circumstances presented in this case than those in Steward v. State, Supra. See also Lee v. State, 478 S.W.2d 469 (Tex.Cr.App.1972) and Schafer v. State, 436 S.W.2d 352 This case is unlike that of Lepoleum Crothers v. State, 480 S.W.2d 642 (Tex.Cr.App. May......
-
Houston v. State, 45579
...probation proceeding). Unlike Meeks v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 456 S.W.2d 938; Gray v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 475 S.W.2d 246 and Lee v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 478 S.W.2d 469, the record in this case does not affirmatively show that court-appointed counsel had sufficient time to prepare for trial and ......