Schutz v. State, 62124
| Decision Date | 02 February 1983 |
| Docket Number | No. 62124,No. 2,62124,2 |
| Parties | Chester A. SCHUTZ, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Stephen M. Orr, Austin, for appellant.
Ronald Earle, Dist. Atty., and Philip A. Nelson, Asst. Dist. Atty., Austin, Robert Huttash, State's Atty. and Alfred Walker, Asst. State's Atty., Austin, for the State.
Before ONION, P.J., and McCORMICK, J.
This is an appeal from a conviction of possession of a firearm by a felon. Punishment was assessed at two years.
Appellant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to show that he had previously been convicted of a felony involving violence to property. V.T.C.A., Penal Code, Section 46.05. Appellant pled not guilty in a trial before the court. The evidence adduced at trial concerning appellant's prior conviction consisted of State's Exhibit 1, a pen packet containing a judgment and sentence showing that appellant was convicted of burglary in Cause No. 31,840. Appellant stipulated to the testimony of Shaun McQuillan who would have testified that the fingerprints contained in State's Exhibit 1 matched the appellant's fingerprints. Appellant also stipulated to the testimony of George Phifer of the Austin Police Department. Phifer would have testified that on October 22, 1959, he investigated a burglary at the Hyde Park Pharmacy. He found a window which had been broken out and a safe which had been broken open.
There is nothing in the record, however, to show that the burglary which George Phifer investigated was the same burglary for which appellant was convicted in Cause No. 31,840. Since burglary does not involve an act of violence, per se, the determination of whether a felony offense is within the scope of Section 46.05, supra, must depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. Tew v. State, 551 S.W.2d 375 (Tex.Cr.App.1977); Powell v. State, 538 S.W.2d 617 (Tex.Cr.App.1976). We find the evidence is insufficient to show that the burglary for which appellant was previously convicted involved violence to property.
For these reasons the judgment is reversed and the cause is reformed to show an acquittal. Burks v. United States, 437 U.S. 1, 98 S.Ct. 2141, 57 L.Ed.2d 1 (1978); Greene v. Massey, 437 U.S. 19, 98 S.Ct. 2151, 57 L.Ed.2d 15 (1978).
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lackey v. State
...alone, the fact that he committed a violent crime. See Hamilton v. State, 676 S.W.2d 120 (Tex.Cr.App.1984), and Schutz v. State, 646 S.W.2d 224 (Tex.Cr.App.1983). If one carefully observes, see page 116 of the majority opinion, some sort of effort is made to somehow make the prior burglary ......
-
Gardner v. State
...to prove that the 1967 burglary offense involved an act of violence or threatened violence to property as alleged. Schutz v. State, 646 S.W.2d 224 (Tex.Cr.App.1983); Tew v. State, 551 S.W.2d 375 In order to prove that the 1967 burglary offense involved violence or threatened violence to pro......
-
Wisdom v. State
...sufficient evidence to prove that appellant had a prior conviction involving violence or the threat thereof. Schutz v. State, 646 S.W.2d 224, 225 (Tex.Cr.App.1983); Archer v. State, 607 S.W.2d 539 (Tex.Cr.App.1981). Appellant's third ground of review is Appellant, in his second ground of re......
-
Boyd v. State
...1993 Tex.Gen.Laws 3586, 3688.Burglary is not the kind of crime which, by definition, involves acts of violence per se. Schutz v. State, 646 S.W.2d 224 (Tex.Crim.App.1983). The determination of whether a burglary is a crime of violence depends on the specific facts and circumstances of each ......