Ramirez v. State
| Decision Date | 11 November 1964 |
| Docket Number | No. 37173,37173 |
| Citation | 383 S.W.2d 606 |
| Parties | Joe RAMIREZ, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee. |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Mario G. Obledo, San Antonio, for appellant.
James E. Barlow, Dist. Atty., John G. Benavides, Raymond A. Wietzel and Earl C. Hill, Asst. Dist. Attys., San Antonio, and Leon B. Douglas, State's Atty., Austin, for the State.
DICE, Commissioner.
The conviction is for burglary; the punishment, enhanced under Art. 62, Vernon's Ann.P.C., by reason of a prior conviction for an offense of like character, twelve years.
The state's evidence shows that the prosecuting witnesses, Joe and Anita Guillen, operated the Gaslite Lounge, located at 2518 Culebra Street in the city of San Antonio.
Mrs. Guillen testified that on the night in question she closed the place around midnight and before leaving she locked all doors, checked all windows, and was sure that no windows were broken. She stated that after she left the place, the appellant, who had been inside drinking beer, accompanied her and some friends to a restaurant where they ate a meal. After finishing their meal, they left in the witnesses' automobile and appellant got out of the car at the corner of Culebra and San Manuel.
Officer Cruz de 1a Rosa, Jr., testified that between 1:30 and 2:00 a. m., on the same night, while driving by the Gaslite Lounge, he observed a front plate glass window broken in the building. He got out of his car and as he walked toward the window he heard noises and observed the appellant inside the building, crouched down by a door which he was trying to open. As he started inside the building the appellant opened the door, ran out, and was caught by the witness and other officers when he fell to the ground after being pursued for some two hundred feet.
It was also shown that when appellant was picked up by the officers a screwdriver was lying on the ground under him and that there were pry marks on a machine inside the building.
It was also shown that appellant did not have the permission of the owners of the premises to break and enter the building on the night in question.
Proof of appellant's prior conviction for burglary, alleged for enhancement, was made by the introduction in evidence of certain authenticated prison records and comparison of fingerprints in the manner which has been approved by this court.
Testifying as a witness in his own behalf, appellant admitted being in the lounge on the night in question but denied breaking and entering the building. Appellant stated that the window was broken and a door was open when he arrived at the scene and that he went inside to call the police. Appellant also admitted having been convicted, in 1961, of the offense of burglary, alleged in the indictment for enhancement, and also admitted that he had been convicted of shoplifting in the year 1963.
The court submitted the issue of appellant's guilt to the jury upon a charge on the law of circumstantial evidence.
Appellant predicates his appeal upon three formal bills of exception.
By bill of exception #1, appellant complains that the court erred in overruling his motion to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ex parte Slaton
...during the trial, since a trial with the prisoner in irons is considered obnoxious to the spirit of justice.' See also Ramirez v. State, 383 S.W.2d 606 (Tex.Cr.App.1964); Clark v. State, 398 S.W.2d 763 (Tex.Cr.App.1966), and cases there cited; Garcia v. State, 435 S.W.2d 533 (Tex.Cr.App.196......
-
Ward v. State
...noticed this. No evidence of injury or prejudice appears in the record. Cline v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 463 S.W.2d 441; Ramirez v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 383 S.W.2d 606. See Ex parte Slaton, Tex.Cr.App., 484 S.W.2d The second ground of error is overruled. The next complaint, contained in appellan......
-
Brito Carrasco v. State
...nature of its effect). 6. Charles McCormick, McCormick on Evidence § 262, at 776 (3d ed.1986). 7. Id. 8. Id. 9. See Ramirez v. State, 383 S.W.2d 606, 607 (Tex.Crim.App.1964) ("[a]ppellant is in no position to complain at the admission of [unauthenticated prison records] in evidence, in view......
-
Carrasco v. State, No. PD-0173-04 (TX 1/19/2005)
...of its effect). 6. Charles McCormick, McCormick on Evidence § 262, at 776 (3d ed. 1986). 7. Id. 8. Id. 9. See Ramirez v. State, 383 S.W.2d 606, 607 (Tex. Crim. App. 1964) ("[a]ppellant is in no position to complain at the admission of [unauthenticated prison records] in evidence, in view of......