Lee v. State, No. 44747

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas. Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas
Writing for the CourtDOUGLAS
Citation478 S.W.2d 469
PartiesNathaniel Herman LEE, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.
Docket NumberNo. 44747
Decision Date29 March 1972

Page 469

478 S.W.2d 469
Nathaniel Herman LEE, Appellant,
v.
The STATE of Texas, Appellee.
No. 44747.
Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
March 29, 1972.

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.

OPINION

DOUGLAS, Judge.

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

Page 471

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...

To continue reading

Request your trial
5 practice notes
  • Moreno v. State, No. 626-82
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Texas. Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas
    • June 1, 1983
    ...days 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 ......
  • Henson v. State, No. 50702
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Texas. Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas
    • December 19, 1975
    ...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 period w......
  • Carter v. State, Nos. 45048
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Texas. Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas
    • May 31, 1972
    ...be 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. ......
  • Houston v. State, No. 45579
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Texas. Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas
    • January 24, 1973
    ...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 the appointment was mad......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
5 cases
  • Moreno v. State, No. 626-82
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Texas. Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas
    • June 1, 1983
    ...days 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 ......
  • Henson v. State, No. 50702
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Texas. Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas
    • December 19, 1975
    ...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 period w......
  • Carter v. State, Nos. 45048
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Texas. Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas
    • May 31, 1972
    ...be 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. ......
  • Houston v. State, No. 45579
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Texas. Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas
    • January 24, 1973
    ...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 the appointment was mad......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT