Masters v. State

Decision Date29 January 1969
Docket NumberNo. 41846,41846
Citation437 S.W.2d 868
PartiesLen MASTERS, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.
CourtTexas Court of Criminal Appeals

James David Durham, Jr., Tom Upchurch, Jr., Amarillo, for appellant.

Tom Curtis, Dist. Atty., H. Bryan Poff, Jr., Asst. Dist. Atty., Amarillo, and Leon B. Douglas, State's Atty., Austin, for the State.



The offense is felony theft with two prior convictions alleged for enhancement; the punishment, assessed by the court, life.

Appellant's first ground of error is that the evidence is insufficient to support the conviction. The facts showed that appellant was interrupted by the owner of a service station and his employee as appellant was taking money from the station's cash register. When accosted by the owner, appellant 'reached in his pockets' and 'pulled out a handful of money from each pocket and handed (the money to the owner and his employee) and broke and ran.' The amount initially taken from the cash register was approximately $143.00. The amount actually taken by appellant when he fled, after handing some money to the owner and employee, was $16.04.

Appellant contends that only the $16.04 was taken and that a prosecution for theft of over $50.00 is not maintainable. With such contention we do not agree for this Court has many times held that the crime of theft is complete where the article taken is reduced to the possession of the taker. It is not essential that appellant have removed the money from the premises of the service station. In the recent case of Senter v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 411 S.W.2d 742, we noted that removal from their accustomed place was sufficient evidence to convict the accused of the theft of hogs. The removal of the money from the cash register by this appellant made the offense complete. See the cases collated at 25A Tex.Dig., Larceny, 12, and Art. 1412, Vernon's Ann.P.C.

Appellant's second ground of error relates to the admission of certain testimony. No objection was made at the time the complained-of testimony was presented and no error is preserved for our review. See cases collated at 13A Tex.Dig., Crim.Law, 1120(8).

As his third ground of error appellant states the trial court erred in failing to quash the second and third counts of the indictment because they alleged Oklahoma felony convictions which were based on informations, not indictments. Appellant's motion to quash, made in the absence of the jury for the first time, came after the prosecutor offered certificates of the Secretary of State of Oklahoma containing portions of pertinent Oklahoma statutes authori...

To continue reading

Request your trial
10 cases
  • Acosta v. State
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
    • June 1, 1983
    ...of Texas in absence of a showing to the contrary. See also Holcombe v. State, 424 S.W.2d 635 (Tex.Cr.App.1968). 1 In Masters v. State, 437 S.W.2d 868 (Tex.Cr.App.1969), it was held the trial court did not err in refusing to quash the enhancement portion of the indictment where the motion to......
  • Jahanian v. State, No. 14-07-00703-CR (Tex. App. 5/28/2009)
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Appeals
    • May 28, 2009
    ...insufficient to prove theft when proof showed defendant moved property from its original position at business); Masters v. State, 437 S.W.2d 868, 869 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969) ("It is not essential that appellant have removed the money from the premises of the service station."); In re C.L.W.,......
  • Tinsley v. State, 43333
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
    • December 16, 1970
    ...Clearly the evidence shows he exercised sufficient dominion and control over the item to support a conviction for theft. Masters v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 437 S.W.2d 868; Esparza v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 367 S.W.2d 861; Bryant v. State, 122 Tex.Cr.R. 385, 55 S.W.2d In this same connection appell......
  • Cecil v. State, No. 2-04-506-CR (TX 8/4/2005)
    • United States
    • Texas Supreme Court
    • August 4, 2005
    ...FKC, as appellant contends. The offense of theft was complete when FKC's money was in appellant's possession. Masters v. State, 437 S.W.2d 868, 869 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969); see also Donald v. State, 453 S.W.2d 825, 828 (Tex. Crim. App. 1970) (holding that the fact that appellant, through one......
  • 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