Rogers v. State, 30872
| Decision Date | 27 June 1959 |
| Docket Number | No. 30872,30872 |
| Citation | 168 Tex.Crim. 306,325 S.W.2d 697 |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
| Parties | Edward D. ROGERS, Appellant, v. STATE of Texas, Appellee. |
Ralph O. Shepley, Houston, for appellant.
Dan Walton, Dist. Atty., Thomas D. White, Samuel H. Robertson, Jr., and Gus J. Zgourides, Asst. Dist. Attys., Houston, and Leon B. Douglas, State's Atty., Austin, for the State.
[168 TEXCRIM 307] The offense is passing as true a forged instrument in writing; the punishment, enhanced under Art. 63, Vernon's Ann.P.C. by two prior convictions for felonies less than capital, life.
There are two reasons why the judgment of conviction cannot be affirmed.
(1) The indictment alleged that appellant was convicted of burglary in Victoria County on December 1, 1948, and that after the conviction had become final he committed the offense of theft, a felony, and on March 28, 1951, was convicted of that offense in Criminal District Court of Harris County, Texas.
We find no evidence in the record as to when the theft for which appellant was convicted in Harris County was committed.
This Court has consistently held that to invoke the provisions of Art. 63, Vernon's Ann.P.C., it is necessary that each succeeding conviction be subsequent both in point of time of the commission of the offense and the conviction therefor. Guilliams v. State, 159 Tex.Cr.R. 81, 261 S.W.2d 598, and cases cited.
The indictment must so allege and the averments of the indictment must be supported by proof. Arbuckle v. State, 132 Tex.Cr.R. 371, 105 S.W.2d 219, 221; Armendariz v. State, 163 Tex.Cr.R. 515, 294 S.W.2d 98, 99.
(2) The indictment alleged the primary offense of forgery, and properly alleged that such offense was committed after the two prior convictions had become final.
The indictment further charged the offense of passing and attempting to pass as true a forged instrument in writing, no reference being made to the prior convictions and the indictment containing no allegation that the offense of passing a forged instrucment was committed after appellant had been convicted of two felonies less than capital.
The count charging forgery was not submitted to the jury. The jury found appellant 'guilty of passing a forged instrument as charged' and found that he 'was previously convicted of two felony offenses less than capital alleged in the indictment.'
An accused is entitled to proper notice in the indictment of any prior conviction which...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Rummel v. Estelle
...of and the conviction for the prior offense. See Tyra v. State, 534 S.W.2d 695, 697-698 (Tex.Crim.App.1976); Rogers v. State, 168 Tex.Cr.R. 306, 308, 325 S.W.2d 697, 698 (1959). 17. Thus, it is not true that, as the dissent claims, the Texas scheme subjects a person to life imprisonment "me......
-
Hollins v. State
...so because an accused is entitled to proper notice of any prior conviction alleged for enhancement of punishment. Rogers v. State, 168 Tex.Cr.R. 306, 325 S.W.2d 697 (1959). In Morman v. State, 127 Tex.Cr.R. 264, 75 S.W.2d 886 (1934), this court "The accused is entitled to a description of t......
-
Wheat v. State
...352 S.W.2d 836; Cowan v. State, 172 Tex.Cr.R. 183, 355 S.W.2d 521; Loud v. State, 166 Tex.Cr.R. 81, 311 S.W.2d 852. In Rogers v. State, 168 Tex.Cr.R. 306, 325 S.W.2d 697, it was said: 'This Court has consistently held that to invoke the provisions of Article 63, Vernon's Ann.P.C., it is nec......
-
Brooks v. State
...... Patterson, 740 S.W.2d at 778 (Miller, J. concurring)(citing Rogers v. State, 168 Tex.Cr.R. 306, 325 S.W.2d 697(1959), overruled in part by, Scott v. State, 553 S.W.2d 361 (Tex.Crim.App.1977); Parasco v. State, 165 ......