Mitchell v. State, 46041
| Decision Date | 16 May 1973 |
| Docket Number | No. 46041,46041 |
| Citation | 494 S.W.2d 865 |
| Parties | Frank Guy MITCHELL, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee. |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Foreman & DeGuerin, Houston, for appellant.
Carol S. Vance, Dist. Atty., Phyllis Bell and Ronald G. Woods, Asst. Dist. Attys., Houston, Jim D. Vollers, State's Atty., and Robert A. Huttash, Asst. State's Atty., Austin, for the State.
The conviction is for the offense of felony theft; punishment was enhanced under Article 63, V.A.P.C., and appellant was assessed life imprisonment.
Two grounds of error are alleged. Appellant first contends that a prior felony conviction used for enhancement purposes was obtained when appellant was not represented by counsel. Appellant concludes, therefore, that reversible error was committed.
Appellant testified that he was not advised of his right to an attorney at this prior trial. Yet the judgment in that cause recites that 'Frank Guy Mitchell appeared in person, his counsel also being present . . ..' Further, appellant has raised no issue of indigency as of the time of the prior trial. See Lott v. State, 480 S.W.2d 743 (Tex.Cr.App.1972); Hudson v. State, 453 S.W.2d 147 (Tex.Cr.App.1970). We find appellant's contention to be without merit.
In his final ground, appellant brings forth the argument that the trial court erred in overruling his motion for new trial, there being newly discovered evidence of his innocence. At the hearing on the motion, witnesses placed appellant in Trinity, Texas, on the day of the offense, at approximately 9:30 to 10:00 a.m., between 1:30 and 2:00 p.m,, and about 4:00 p.m., the same day. Another witness testified that she lived in the apartment house where the robbery took place and saw the victim enter and exit the apartment where the offense occurred, but did not see appellant.
The State's evidence showed the robbery to have taken place around 11:30 a.m., in Houston. Unrefuted evidence was presented at the hearing that Trinity, Texas, is located some 50 miles from Houston. We can take judicial knowledge of the fact that this figure is an under-estimate. Nevertheless, the appellant has failed to negate the State's theory of guilt.
Also, none of the four witnesses who testified at the hearing on the motion for new trial were subpoenaed for the actual trial. Two of the witnesses' testimony indicated that, though they observed appellant on the day of the offense, he did not know t...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Haines v. State, 61079
...See Glover v. State, 566 S.W.2d 636, 638 (Tex.Cr.App.1978); White v. State, 517 S.W.2d 543, 550 (Tex.Cr.App.1975); Mitchell v. State, 494 S.W.2d 865 (Tex.Cr.App.1973); Mendoza v. State, 552 S.W.2d 444, 449 (Tex.Cr.App.1977). His contention is therefore We have reviewed all of appellant's pr......
-
Mendoza v. State
...This alone is insufficient to support appellant's contention. Ex parte Swinney, 499 S.W.2d 101 (Tex.Cr.App.1973); Mitchell v. State, 494 S.W.2d 865 (Tex.Cr.App.1973). The appellant offered no other evidence. His contention is without merit in light of the record before Appellant's fourth gr......
-
Scott v. State, 56091
...which he apparently never did. This alone has been held sufficient to be grounds to deny a motion for new trial. See Mitchell v. State, 494 S.W.2d 865 (Tex.Cr.App.1973); Hilton v. State, 443 S.W.2d 843 In its final paragraph the majority states that "if the request is first made after the j......
-
Elledge v. State, 3-93-259-CR
...the evidence could not have been discovered, through the exercise of diligence, at or before the time of trial. See Mitchell v. State, 494 S.W.2d 865, 866 (Tex.Crim.App.1973), cert. denied, 414 U.S. 1163, 94 S.Ct. 927, 39 L.Ed.2d 116 (1974); Huffman v. State, 479 S.W.2d 62, 69 With respect ......