Lucero v. State, 47809
| Decision Date | 12 December 1973 |
| Docket Number | No. 47809,47809 |
| Citation | 502 S.W.2d 128 |
| Parties | Tony LUCERO, alias Tony Yanez, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee. |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Arthur A. Estefan (Court appointed on appeal), San Antonio, for appellant.
Ted Butler, Dist. Atty., Fred Rodriguez and David K. Chapman, Asst. Dist. Attys., San Antonio, Jim D. Vollers, State's Atty., and Buddy Stevens, Asst. State's Atty., Austin, for the State.
This is an appeal from an order revoking probation.
On August 23, 1971, appellant was convicted of felony theft after he entered his guilty plea before the court. Punishment was assessed at two (2) years. The imposition of the sentence was suspended and the appellant was placed on probation subject to certain conditions, among which was the requirement that he '(1) neither commit nor be convicted of any offense against the laws of the State of Texas . . ..'
On May 25, 1972, the State filed a motion to revoke probation alleging five separate violations of probationary condition number one.
On December 11, 1972, the court conducted a hearing on said motion, following which it revoked probation.
At the hearing the appellant entered pleas of 'true' to the first two alleged violations set forth in the motion to revoke--that he had committed felony theft on December 27, 1971 and on February 27, 1972. He pled 'not true' to the other three alleged violations.
Appellant then took the witness stand and admitted under oath that he had been convicted of the first offense alleged in the motion to revoke and that he had committed the second offense alleged in said motion and had also been convicted of that offense.
After such testimony, the State abandoned the remaining portion of the revocation motion and the court announced that it was finding that the appellant had 'violated condition number one of the conditions of probation.' The court then imposed sentence.
First, appellant contends the court abused its discretion in that there was not sufficient evidence to show a violation of probationary conditions.
We cannot agree. The appellant entered a plea of 'true' and then made a judicial confession.
Appellant contends his interrogation by the prosecution elicited evidence which was ambiguous and contradictory and that he same would not support the court's finding. He calls attention to that part of the record where he once said he was not on probation when one of the offenses was committed, then testified he was on probation at the time after conferring with counsel. In regard to the other offense he notes that he related he committed the offense on February 27, 1972, and that he answered the following question in the affirmative that he had been convicted of the offense on the same date.
The questions were inartfully and awkwardly framed, and certainly no model to be followed, but the same do not detract from the validity of the judicial confession, which is sufficient to support the revocation order.
Appellant also contends that the court abused its discretion in failing to make any specific...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lombard v. Lynaugh
...ownership of the property taken, not merely in whose possession it was, was a necessary element of the offense. Lucero v. State, 502 S.W.2d 128 (Tex.Crim.App.1973) (first case); Snow v. State, 156 Tex.Cr.R. 49, 238 S.W.2d 966 (1951). See also Ward v. State, 520 S.W.2d 395, 397 (Tex.Crim.App......
-
McDonald v. State
...Clapper v. State, 562 S.W.2d 250, 251 (Tex.Cr.App.1978); Rodriguez v. State, 552 S.W.2d 451, 456 (Tex.Cr.App.1977); Lucero v. State, 502 S.W.2d 128, 130 (Tex.Cr.App.1973). Lucero, supra, both pointed to "the better practice" and viewed the failure to request findings but opted for neither, ......
-
Watson v. State
...in the robbery renders the indictment void. Reliance is had upon Bouie v. State, 528 S.W.2d 587 (Tex.Cr.App.1975), and Lucero v. State, 502 S.W.2d 128 (Tex.Cr.App.1973). This reliance is misplaced as those cases dealt with robbery indictments drafted under the former Penal Code. Only recent......
-
Ex parte Rivers
...was void, since that conviction was based upon a fatally defective indictment under this Court's prior opinions in Lucero v. State, 502 S.W.2d 128 (Tex.Cr.App.1973) and Bouie v. State, 528 S.W.2d 587 (Tex.Cr.App.1975). The record reflects that the prior conviction in question was a 1961 McL......