Mendez v. State
| Decision Date | 07 November 1962 |
| Docket Number | No. 34921,34921 |
| Citation | 362 S.W.2d 841 |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
| Parties | Guadalupe Morales MENDEZ, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee. |
C. C. Divine, Houston, for appellant.
Frank Briscoe, Dist. Atty., Gus J. Zgourides and Howell E. Stone, Asst. Dist. Attys., Houston, and Leon B. Douglas, State's Atty., Austin, for the State.
The appeal is from a 50 year sentence assessed by the jury following trial upon indictment alleging the unlawful possession of heroin and a prior conviction for possession of marijuana.
The prior conviction, in the same court in which the present indictment was returned, was shown by records of the Texas Department of Corrections including certified copies of the judgment and sentence and finger prints; and appellant's identity as the person so convicted was shown by the testimony of Officer E. G. Knowles, finger print classifier and expert in that field, who compared said prints with finger prints he had taken of the appellant and testified that they were finger prints of the same person.
Officers who had a warrant for appellant's arrest, being informed as to his whereabouts, went to No. 3 Fox Courts in Harris County. As the officers approached, appellant, who was standing on the porch, turned and ran into the house. Three of the officers ran to the rear of the house and saw appellant running out the back door. As the officers 'rounded' the corner of the house, appellant turned and ran back into the house. The officers pursued him into the house and observed appellant pull out of his pants pocket a cellophane package, which he attempted to place in his mouth. 'His hands were blocked' by the officers, however, and the package fell to the floor. It was picked up by the officers and thereafter its contents were analyzed by Mr. McDonald, chemist and toxicologist for the City of Houston, who testified that the package contained 10 capsules each containing one grain of 29 per cent pure heroin. The cellophane paper and capsules identified by Officer Chavez and Mr. McDonald were introduced in evidence at the trial.
Appellant offered no witnesses at the trial, nor did he testify.
We find the evidence sufficient to sustain the conviction.
Appellant filed a motion for change of venue supported by the affidavit of two compurgators to the effect that District Attorney Briscoe 'has been reported by Television and Radio newsreporters and by all of the three Houston newspapers both by story and photographs that Guadalupe Morales Mendez was a person charged with an offense in Harris County and was one of twelve he most wanted to convict and most wanted to see in the penitentiary, by reason of which the Defendant Guadalupe Morales Mendez, cannot, we think, reasonably expect a fair trial of said cause in this Harris County.'
We do not construe the averment quoted as showing, if true, that either of the grounds which require a change of venue existed.
The court heard evidence which is before us in a separate statement of facts...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Olson v. State
...v. State, 82 Tex.Cr.R. 597, 200 S.W. 527, 528 (1918); Conners v. State, 134 Tex.Cr.R. 278, 115 S.W.2d 681 (1938); Mendez v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 362 S.W.2d 841 (1962); Bonner v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 375 S.W.2d 723 (1964); Harrington v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 424 S.W.2d 237, 242 (1968); De La Ros......
-
Henley v. State, s. 53561-53566
...(Tex.Cr.App.1971); Wallace v. State, 458 S.W.2d 67 (Tex.Cr.App.1970); Ward v. State, 427 S.W.2d 876 (Tex.Cr.App.1968); Mendez v. State, 362 S.W.2d 841 (Tex.Cr.App.1963). Appellant requested that he be allowed to immediately introduce evidence on a bill of exception. Counsel was informed by ......
-
Miller v. State
...of a search. Robinson v. State, 163 Tex.Cr.R. 499, 293 S.W.2d 781; Nava v. State, 170 Tex.Cr.R. 355, 340 S.W.2d 955; Mendez v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 362 S.W.2d 841; Garcia v. State, 163 Tex.Cr.R. 146, 289 S.W.2d 766; Lopez v. State, 171 Tex.Cr.R. 672, 352 S.W.2d 747; Ortega v. State, Tex.Cr.A......
-
Blankenship v. State
...and after the selection of a jury overruled the motion, to which action the appellant neither objected nor excepted. See Mendez v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 362 S.W.2d 841. We cannot conclude the trial judge abused his discretion in overruling such Appellant further contends the trial court erred......