Price v. State
| Decision Date | 01 February 1967 |
| Docket Number | No. 40041,40041 |
| Citation | 410 S.W.2d 778 |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
| Parties | Charles Ray PRICE, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee. |
Lawrence R. Green, Dallas, for appellant.
Henry Wade, Dist. Atty., Scott Bradley, John H. Stauffer and Kerry P. FitzGerald, Asst. Dist. Attys., Dallas, Leon B. Douglas, State's Atty., Austin, for the State.
The offense is robbery; the punishment, twelve years. Notice of appeal was given on February 25, 1966.
The testimony for the State reveals that the appellant and two male companions Palmer and Thompson, arrived on foot at a service station in the city of Dallas at 4:00 a.m. on the day of the robbery. At this time the lone attendant observed that they were acting 'like they were good friends.' The trio went to a pay telephone booth at the side of the station, and subsequently the appellant and Palmer separately asked the attendant for change allegedly for the purpose of using the telephone to call a taxicab. As a taxicab arrived at the station, Thompson who was sixteen years of age at the time, entered the station, asked for change, then at gun point told the attendant, 'Man, give me all of it.' Thompson then removed from the cash register the sum later determined to be $37.25 in ten and five dollar bills and quarters. The attendant was forced to lie on the floor and Thompson left. Shortly thereafter, the appellant entered the front door of the station, looked around and left through the side entrance. The attendant, who did not see the three men leave, immediately called the police to report the robbery, and gave a description of the men first to the police dispatcher and later to the officers who arrived on the scene. The attendant testified the money was taken without his consent and that he, at the time, was in fear of his life or bodily injury.
Floyd Robinson, the taxicab driver, testified he received a call to the service station in question. Arriving at the station at 4:15 a.m., he observed the attendant who soon disappeared from view and three Negro men. Shortly thereafter, two of the Negro men came out of the station and got into the cab. One of the men had a gun in his hand and a handful of greenbacks. Upon inquiry they told the cab driver that the other Negro man still in the station was with them. When told that the cab driver could not take them where they wanted to go, the two men got out of the cab. The cab driver left and reported the matter to the police.
Acting on information over the police broadcast as to the robbery and the age, clothing, height, race and sex of the three individuals who had fled, a patrol car saw three men fitting the description an estimated mile from the service station approximately 45 minutes after the robbery. One officer testified that as the officers approached the trio, 'one boy (Thompson) tried to get away.' Appellant and his companions were apprehended and searched. The search revealed that the appellant had nineteen dollars crumpled up in his front pockets. The other two had money wadded in their front pockets. The money in five and ten dollar bills and quarters in possession of the trio approximated the amount stolen from the service station.
The appellant insists that he was illegally arrested without a warrant and that the trial court erred in admitting into evidence, over his objections, the fruits of the search of the appellant and those arrested with him.
We are not in accord with this contention. It is well settled an arrest which is lawful carries with it the right to make a search and seizure incidental thereto. Jones v. State, 171 Tex.Cr.R. 608, 352 S.W.2d 270; Carrizales v. State, 152 Tex.Cr.R. 499, 215 S.W.2d 342.
A review of the facts indicates that a police broadcast informed the officers, four or five times prior to the arrest, regarding the number of persons involved in the robbery, their approximate age, height, race and sex as well as three distinguishing articles of clothing. The suspects fitting this description were seen together in the early morning hours within 45 minutes of the robbery and within a mile thereof. As the officer approached, one of the suspects attempted to leave the scene.
It appears to us that under these facts and circumstances the arrest without a warrant was authorized, and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Thornton v. State
...pistols was justified. See O'Neal v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 416 S.W.2d 433; Trammell v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 445 S.W.2d 190; Price v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 410 S.W.2d 778, and Ware v. State, 151 Tex.Cr.R. 228, 207 S.W.2d After this case was tried, the Supreme Court of the United States decided Ch......
-
Arnott v. State
...by circumstantial evidence. Roberts v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 375 S.W.2d 303; Westfall v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 375 S.W.2d 911; Price v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 410 S.W.2d 778; Rice v. State, 121 Tex.Cr.R. 68, 51 S.W.2d A conspiracy can seldom be established by direct evidence. Carter v. State, 135 ......
-
Dejarnette v. State
...State, 78 Tex.Cr.R. 392, 183 S.W. 146 (Ct.App.1915); Beeland v. State, 149 Tex.Cr.R. 272, 193 S.W.2d 687 (Ct.App.1946); Price v. State, 410 S.W.2d 778 (Tex.Cr.App.1967); and King v. State, 631 S.W.2d 486 (Tex.Cr.App.1982). Thus, the observing officer may be considered the "credible person" ......
-
Ramirez v. State
...(Vernon 1974). This agreement may be shown by circumstantial evidence. Farrington v. State, 489 S.W.2d at 609; Price v. State, 410 S.W.2d 778, 780 (Tex.Crim.App.1967); Turner v. State, 720 S.W.2d at 164; see also TEX.PENAL CODE ANN. § 15.02(b) (Vernon 1974). In addition to the necessary agr......