Reyes v. State

Decision Date16 June 1971
Docket NumberNo. 43928,43928
CitationReyes v. State, 468 S.W.2d 64 (Tex. Crim. App. 1971)
PartiesPeter Maldonado REYES, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.
CourtTexas Court of Criminal Appeals

Lawrence P. Schaubhut, Austin, for appellant.

Robert O. Smith, Dist. Atty., Harold Jaquet and Lawrence Wells, Asst. Dist. Attys., Austin, and Jim D. Vollers, State's Atty., Austin, for the State.

OPINION

ODOM, Judge.

This appeal is from a conviction for the offense of burglary; the punishment was assessed by the court at three years.

The indictment alleged that appellant '* * * did unlawfully by force, threats, and fraud, break and enter a house * * *.'

The sufficiency of the evidence is challenged.

Don Long, Pastor of the Boulevard Baptist Church, testified that on the night of January 8, 1970, he locked all five doors to the church. He returned to the church between eight and nine o'clock the next morning, and opened it, and was in and out most of the day. Sometime after 4 P.M., he discovered that a typewriter and some other things were missing. He was asked if he found any evidence of breaking, to which he replied 'No, there was nothing forced.'

John E. Phillips, an officer with the Austin Police Department, testified that on January 9, 1970, he stopped an automobile in which the appellant was a passenger. The reason he stopped the car was because one of the occupants therein had fled from his partner several weeks earlier after being arrested and handcuffed. He noticed a typewriter in the back seat of the automobile and, upon being questioned, the driver stated that he did not own it and that it belonged to the appellant. He testified that he then arrested all four occupants of the car 'because we didn't know which one to take.' And because of 'SP on theft, because he couldn't say where he got it. He couldn't prove where he got it, and he said he didn't own it.'

Raymond Ibarra testified that on the date in question the appellant 'asked me to take him to go sell that typewriter he had.' They went to appellant's house and got the typewriter and proceeded to a grocery store and tried to sell it. No sale was consummated at the grocery store so they 'went to Rain Street, and then we were going back to East Holly when we got arrested.' He told the officers that the typewriter was not his and 'I told them that I picked Reyes up and he told me it was his. That is all I told them.' He stated that there were Three occupants of the car and all were arrested.

Appellant testified that he bought the typewriter at the Ringside Bar and wanted to learn to type but 'when I typed, those things (keys) stuck together; those things. I didn't want it.'

The typewriter was not introduced into evidence. The record reflects that there was a Royal Standard Typewriter taken from the church; that it was returned to the church by the Sheriff's Department; that a typewriter matching this description was taken from the appellant; that it was tagged by Officer Phillips and turned over to the Sheriff's Office. The record further reflects the following:

'Q. (By State's Attorney) Now, sir, you had occasion, did you not, sir, of turning this--I believe it was a Royal standard typewriter, small type, over to the Travis County Sheriff's office, pursuant to their investigation of this burglary?

'A. (By Officer Phillips) Yes, sir, this was handled by the detective section, I assume, because it was tagged and placed in the department.'

The record does not show that the typewriter taken from...

Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI

Get Started for Free

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex
8 cases
  • Medrano v. State
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Appeals
    • 8 Septiembre 1983
    ...State, 581 S.W.2d 164, 168 (Tex.Cr.App.1979). The conviction here does not rest upon later possession of stolen goods, Reyes v. State, 468 S.W.2d 64 (Tex.Cr.App.1971), nor does it rest solely upon the accused's proximity to the scene of the crime, Robinson v. State, 570 S.W.2d 906 (Tex.Cr.A......
  • Christopher v. State
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
    • 17 Junio 1992
    ...is insufficient if there is no positive identification of the property taken from the house at the time of the burglary. Reyes v. State, 468 S.W.2d 64 (Tex.Cr.App.1971). To hold otherwise would allow conviction upon an inference from an inference, which is too tenuous to constitute proof be......
  • Silva v. State
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
    • 20 Junio 1973
    ...testified that he recovered torn, used suits, taken in the burglary, from the sheriff. We find appellant's reliance on Reyes v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 468 S.W.2d 64, and similar cases where the State relies on the unexplained possession of recently stolen property for conviction is misplaced. ......
  • Moore v. State
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
    • 27 Octubre 1982
    ...in the robbery. Key v. State, 492 S.W.2d 514 (Tex.Cr.App.1973); Nichols v. State, 479 S.W.2d 277 (Tex.Cr.App.1972); Reyes v. State, 468 S.W.2d 64 (Tex.Cr.App.1971). From the facts in the record, the evidence is not sufficient to sustain appellant's conviction. Dixon v. State, 541 S.W.2d 437......
  • Get Started for Free