Piland v. State
| Decision Date | 30 November 1955 |
| Docket Number | No. 27853,27853 |
| Citation | 162 Tex.Crim. 362,285 S.W.2d 230 |
| Parties | Melvin Ray PILAND, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee. |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Byron Matthews, Ronald Aultman, Fort Worth, for appellant.
Howard M. Fender, Crim. Dist. Atty., Grady Hight, Asst. Crim. Dist. Atty., Eugene D. Biddle, Asst. Crim. Dist. Atty., Conard Florence, Asst. Crim. Dist. Atty., Fort Worth, Leon B. Douglas, State's Atty., Austin, for the State.
The offense is burglary, with a prior offense of the same nature alleged for enhancement; the punishment, 12 years.
Sometime between midnight and 3:15 A.M. on the morning in question, one of the Bob-O-Link service stations in the City of Fort Worth was burglarized. Entrance was made by breaking a window, but access to the money was gained by means of a key which was kept in a secret place in the station known normally only to employees. The key, when in its place, was not visible to anyone in a standing position but could be found if the searcher knew where to feel. A total of $154 was taken, and among the currency was a 1947 Canadian quarter.
At 3:30 A.M. on the same morning, the appellant and two companions were arrested by Fort Worth police officers, and a search of the three resulted in finding $158 fairly equally divided among them and a 1947 Canadian quarter in the possession of the appellant.
The appellant was shown to have been a former employee of this particular Bob-O-Link service station involved in this prosecution and, while so employed, was shown to have used the key in question.
The prior conviction was established.
The appellant did not testify or offer any evidence in his own behalf.
We find the evidence sufficient to support the conviction and shall discuss the facts more fully in discussing contentions raised by appellant's able attorneys in brief and argument.
The first contention relates to the legality of the arrest of the appellant and therefore the admissibility of the fruits of the search of his person.
One of the arresting officers testified that, while on patrol, he observed an automobile approaching them which had no front license plate and as it passed they observed that the rear license plate was a Texas plate and was badly damaged, and since Texas law requires two license plates he and his companion stopped the automobile. The officer further testified that he questioned the three occupants of the automobile, and none of them gave the same account about where they had been, that he 'checked on the radio' and learned that the license plate on the automobile was 'fictitious' and then arrested the appellant and his companions. The search of their persons followed. We have concluded that the facts set forth above, though not carefully developed, constituted sufficient probable cause to authorize this search. Ringo v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 275 S.W.2d 121. The arrest based upon the license plate was lawful, and the search became proper as an incident to the lawful arrest.
Appellant next contends that on several occasions during the trial the court made comments upon the weight of the evidence. We shall enumerate each of his complaints: (1) The court said, 'I will sustain the objection,' at a time when no objection had been made, and when the absence of an...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Burge v. State
...been made inadvertently and not 'calculated to convey to the jury his opinion of the case.' See Article 38.05, supra; Piland v. State, 162 Tex.Cr.R. 362, 285 S.W.2d 230. We cannot conclude, in light of all the evidence, that the remark of the court resulted in such injury to the appellant o......
-
In re Mandel, Case No. 10-40219
... ... None of these complaints and petitions bore any fruit. In addition, the parties engaged in bitter litigation in state court in connection with claims asserted by and between Thrasher, Coleman, and Mandel, among others. The state court eventually appointed a receiver ... ...
-
Miller v. United States, 22443.
...has committed or is committing an offense. Beck v. State of Ohio, 379 U.S. 89, 85 S.Ct. 223, 13 L.Ed.2d 142. See also Piland v. State, 162 Tex.Cr.R. 362, 285 S.W.2d 230; Hatfield v. State, 161 Tex.Cr.R. 362, 276 S.W.2d 829; Soileau v. State, 156 Tex.Cr.R. 544, 244 S.W.2d 224; 6 Tex.Jur.2d A......
-
Bell v. State
...396 S.W.2d 133; Bryant v. State, Tex.Civ.App., 367 S.W.2d 684; Bell v. State, 166 Tex.Cr.R. 340, 313 S.W.2d 606; and Piland v. State, 162 Tex.Cr.R. 362, 285 S.W.2d 230. Complaint is made in her eleventh ground of error of Sgt. Gordy's testimony of the scene which confronted him upon enterin......