Resendez v. State, 23824.
| Decision Date | 03 December 1947 |
| Docket Number | No. 23824.,23824. |
| Citation | 207 S.W.2d 91 |
| Parties | RESENDEZ v. STATE. |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Appeal from Criminal District Court, Bexar County; S. G. Tayloe, Special Judge.
Augustin Resendez was convicted of burglary at night of a private residence, and he appeals.
Judgment affirmed.
Ruben R. Lozano and Theo. P. Heneley, both of San Antonio, for appellant.
William N. Hensley, Cr. Dist. Atty., and Arthur A. Domangue, Asst. Cr. Dist. Atty., both of San Antonio, Ernest S. Goens, State's Atty., of Austin, for the State.
Conviction is for burglary at night of a private residence; punishment five years in the penitentiary.
Appellant contends that the evidence does not support the verdict and judgment. With this position of appellant we cannot agree. The evidence shows that the private residence of Bedford Masters was burglariously entered on the night of February 22, 1947, and quite a number of articles of jewelry taken therefrom which had belonged to a deceased daughter of Masters, and which were in his custody and control. About 11 o'clock on the night in question a police officer accosted appellant on the street and after some conversation with him the officer found in appellant's possession all of the various articles which had been taken from the Masters residence, except a small diamond ring, which was never found. All of the other articles were identified by, and returned to Masters at police headquarters. In conversation with the officer who arrested appellant he claimed that the various articles belonged to his wife. At the trial appellant testified disclaiming any knowledge of how the stolen property came into his possession, and asserting that he was so drunk he had no recollection of anything. The next day after the burglary one of the officers took appellant in a car and drove by the Masters residence which appellant pointed out as the house he had been in. No objection to any of the evidence was interposed during the trial. It abundantly supports the judgment of conviction.
In his amended motion for new trial appellant attempts to raise a question as to the regularity of the jury panel from which the jury in his case was selected. The jury for the week which had been assigned to the trial court had been excused by the "assignment" clerk in the District Clerk's Office, who thought there was no further need for their services for that week. This was done without...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ex parte Watson
...impaneled, and sworn. See Article 35.06, V.A.C.C.P.; Ramsour v. State, 165 Tex.Cr.R. 481, 308 S.W.2d 56 (1957); Resendez v. State, 80 Tex.Cr.R. 26, 207 S.W.2d 91 (1948). No error is Petitioner next contends that the trial court erred in admitting, over objection, medical records concerning ......
-
Ramsour v. State, 29233
...S.W. 634; Hernandez v. State, 47 Tex.Cr.R. 20, 81 S.W. 1210; Campbell v. State, 122 Tex.Cr.R. 494, 56 S.W.2d 460 and Resendez v. State, 151 Tex.Cr.R. 332, 207 S.W.2d 91. In Hernandez v. State, supra, where the legality of a special venire was raised for the first time on motion for new tria......
-
Howell v. State
...late when made for the first time in his amended motion for new trial. 26 Tex.Jur., pars. 73, 74, pages 638 and 639; Resendez v. State, 151 Tex.Cr.R. 332, 207 S.W.2d 91; Waller v. Summers (Tex.Civ.App.), 299 S.W.2d 752, Reh. Den. err. ref. N. R. E.; Ramsour v. State, 165 Tex.Cr.R. 481, 308 ......