Powell v. State, 44746
| Decision Date | 22 March 1972 |
| Docket Number | No. 44746,44746 |
| Citation | 479 S.W.2d 685 |
| Parties | Isaac L. POWELL, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee. |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
James R. Warncke, San Antonio, for appellant.
Ted Butler, Dist. Atty., Bill M. White and Lucien B. Campbell, Asst. Dist. Attys., San Antonio, and Jim D. Vollers, State's Atty., Austin, for the State.
DALLY, Commissioner.
The conviction is for the sale of marihuana; the punishment, five years imprisonment.
The sole ground of error presented is that the evidence is not sufficient to sustain the judgment of conviction.
The appellant, with the consent and approval of the trial judge and the district attorney, waived a jury trial and entered a plea of not guilty before the court.
Officer H. Rangel, while working as an undercover agent with the San Antonio Police Department on the night the offense occurred, went to a pool hall known as the Kool Breeze. While there, the appellant approached Rangel and inquired if he wanted to purchase some 'grass.' Rangel said that he needed two 'joints.' The appellant reached inside of his pocket and brought out a cigarette pack and gave Rangel two marihuana cigarettes in exchange for two dollars. Officer Rangel later that evening reported to his supervisor and gave him the cigarettes, after they were placed in an envelope and an identification mark had been affixed.
Rangel said in September, 1969, prior to the time he commenced to work as an undercover agent, he was on duty at the booking desk of the jail and the appellant was brought to the jail as a prisoner. He had a special recollection of seeing him at that time because he said the appellant had been arrested for an offense against a security officer at the Holiday Inn. The officer also testified that while he had been working as an undercover agent he visited the Kool Breeze Pool Hall almost every day. He had seen the appellant there prior to the night of this sale. Rangel said people at the pool hall knew he had bought marihuana there.
After a proper chain of custody had been shown, Mike Johnston, a chemist for the Texas Department of Public Safety, testified that he determined the plant substance in the two cigarettes that the appellant had sold Rangel was marihuana.
The appellant testified he was twenty-one years of age, a high school graduate, had enrolled in a business college and worked as a cook's helper. He said he was not arrested for this offense until December...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ex Parte Anderson
...and it was free to doubt Ward's testimony and any of appellant's statements in his unsworn declaration. See Powell v. State, 479 S.W.2d 685, 687 (Tex. Crim. App. 1972); see also Ex parte Trevor Royce Sells, 2020 WL 7639574, at *4. And the other relevant factors, including appellant's prior ......
-
Mattias v. State
...is authorized to accept or reject any or all of the testimony of the witnesses for either the State or the accused. See Powell v. State, 479 S.W.2d 685 (Tex.Cr.App.1972); Aldridge v. State, 482 S.W.2d 171, 172 (Tex.Cr.App.1972), and cases there cited; Limuel v. State, 568 S.W.2d 309 (Tex.Cr......
-
Rios v. State
...trier of fact, it is the trial judge's function to determine the weight and credibility of the witnesses' testimony. Powell v. State, 479 S.W.2d 685, 687 (Tex.Crim.App.1972); England, 729 S.W.2d at The record establishes that appellant and Rosales met on January 24, 1988, in a Houston resta......
-
Hamilton v. State
...(Tex.Cr.App.1979); Tatom v. State, 555 S.W.2d 459 (Tex.Cr.App.1977); Clark v. State, 548 S.W.2d 888 (Tex.Cr.App.1977); Powell v. State, 479 S.W.2d 685 (Tex.Cr.App.1972). We find it unnecessary to consider the appellant's contention that the State failed to demonstrate due diligence in deter......