Sasser v. State, No. 18431.
| Court | Court of Appeals of Texas. Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas |
| Writing for the Court | Krueger |
| Citation | 98 S.W.2d 211 |
| Parties | SASSER v. STATE. |
| Docket Number | No. 18431. |
| Decision Date | 28 October 1936 |
Page 211
v.
STATE.
Commissioners' Decision.
Appeal from District Court, Red River County; N. L. Dalby, Judge.
Juette Sasser was convicted of theft, and he appeals.
Affirmed.
R. E. Eubank and Herbert L. Jones, both of Paris, and C. A. Holloway, of Clarksville, for appellant.
Lloyd W. Davidson, State's Atty., of Austin, for the State.
KRUEGER, Judge.
Appellant was convicted of the offense of theft, and his punishment was assessed at confinement in the state penitentiary for a term of ten years.
The indictment in this case in due form charged the appellant with the theft of an automobile from O. V. Medford, and for the purpose of enhancing the punishment it was averred in the indictment that on or about the 11th day of December, 1933, he (defendant) had been convicted in the district court of Red River county of a similar offense, to wit, burglary with intent to commit theft. Appellant contends that the offense of burglary with intent to commit theft is not an offense of like nature as that of theft which would authorize the enhancement of his punishment. We cannot agree with him for the reason that in theft cases the primary object is to unlawfully obtain another's property without his consent. For a better understanding of the conclusion reached by us, we make the following illustration: If A goes to B's garage, finds the door to it open, and steals B's car, it is theft. If, however, he finds the door closed, breaks it open, and steals the car, it is nevertheless theft even though the offense may be denominated burglary with intent to commit theft; theft being the primary object of the offender in each instance. The only difference is the means used. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the two offenses charged are of like nature. See Warner v. State, 118 Tex.Cr.R. 351, 42 S.W.(2d) 616.
Bill of exception No. 1 complains of the admission of the testimony as to the appellant's escape from jail, and bill No. 2 complains of the admission of testimony as to the value of the alleged stolen car. We think that both of said bills of exception
Page 212
are without merit and are overruled without discussion.
By bill of exception No. 3 appellant complains of the admission as evidence of the judgment of appellant's conviction in the district court of Red River county in cause No. 10559 because in the indictment upon which...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Rhine, No. PD-0912-08.
...has exclusive dominion over the fixing of penalties for offenses under the state's penal laws. See Sasser v. State, 131 Tex.Crim. 347, 98 S.W.2d 211, 212 (Tex.Crim.App.1936); David v. State, 453 S.W.2d 172, 179 (Tex.Crim.App.1970), vacated on other grounds in David v. Texas, 408 U.S. 937, 9......
-
State v. Empey, NO. 02-14-00407-CR
...in part on other grounds , 408 U.S. 937, 937, 92 S.Ct. 2862, 2862, 33 L.Ed.2d 755 (1972) ; Sasser v. State , 131 Tex.Crim. 347, 349, 98 S.W.2d 211, 212 (1936).7 See Ex parte Granviel , 561 S.W.2d 503, 514 (Tex.Crim.App.1978) (relying on Margolin v. State , 151 Tex.Crim. 132, 138, 205 S.W.2d......
-
David v. State, No. 42663
...fixing of penalties and punishment for a felony is within the exclusive domain of the Legislature. Sasser v. State, 131 Tex.Cr.R. 347, 98 S.W.2d 211. Where the punishment assessed is within the limits authorized by law, the propriety of extent of such punishment is a matter resting solely w......
-
MARTINEZ v. The State of Tex., No. PD-0622-09 through PD-0626-09.
...and general welfare of society, and of the people as a whole.”). 39 Rhine, 297 S.W.3d at 306 (citing Sasser v. State, 131 Tex.Crim. 347, 98 S.W.2d 211, 212 (Tex.Crim.App.1936); David v. State, 453 S.W.2d 172, 179 (Tex.Crim.App.1970), vacated on other grounds in David v. Texas, 408 U.S. 937,......
-
State v. Rhine, No. PD-0912-08.
...has exclusive dominion over the fixing of penalties for offenses under the state's penal laws. See Sasser v. State, 131 Tex.Crim. 347, 98 S.W.2d 211, 212 (Tex.Crim.App.1936); David v. State, 453 S.W.2d 172, 179 (Tex.Crim.App.1970), vacated on other grounds in David v. Texas, 408 U.S. 937, 9......
-
State v. Empey, NO. 02-14-00407-CR
...in part on other grounds , 408 U.S. 937, 937, 92 S.Ct. 2862, 2862, 33 L.Ed.2d 755 (1972) ; Sasser v. State , 131 Tex.Crim. 347, 349, 98 S.W.2d 211, 212 (1936).7 See Ex parte Granviel , 561 S.W.2d 503, 514 (Tex.Crim.App.1978) (relying on Margolin v. State , 151 Tex.Crim. 132, 138, 205 S.W.2d......
-
David v. State, No. 42663
...fixing of penalties and punishment for a felony is within the exclusive domain of the Legislature. Sasser v. State, 131 Tex.Cr.R. 347, 98 S.W.2d 211. Where the punishment assessed is within the limits authorized by law, the propriety of extent of such punishment is a matter resting solely w......
-
MARTINEZ v. The State of Tex., No. PD-0622-09 through PD-0626-09.
...and general welfare of society, and of the people as a whole.”). 39 Rhine, 297 S.W.3d at 306 (citing Sasser v. State, 131 Tex.Crim. 347, 98 S.W.2d 211, 212 (Tex.Crim.App.1936); David v. State, 453 S.W.2d 172, 179 (Tex.Crim.App.1970), vacated on other grounds in David v. Texas, 408 U.S. 937,......