Shelton v. State, 43358
| Decision Date | 31 December 1970 |
| Docket Number | No. 43358,43358 |
| Citation | 462 S.W.2d 285 |
| Parties | Maurice SHELTON, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee. |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Marion T. Carson, San Antonio, for appellant.
Ted Butler, Dist. Atty., Earl Hill, Charles Campion, and Sparta Bitsis, Asst Dist. Attys., San Antonio, and Jim D. Vollers, State's Atty., Austin, for the State.
This is an appeal from a conviction for murder wherein the penalty was assessed at 50 years' confinement in the Texas Department of Corrections.
The sufficiency of the evidence is not challenged. Suffice it to say the evidence shows that on December 25, 1968, the appellant shot and killed Howard Williams who was employed at the Sat El Lite Club in San Antonio 'to keep peace.' Appellant and two companions, who had been drinking, appeared at the club or lounge and failed or refused to pay the 50 cents cover charge and asked to get in 'free' since it was Christmas. The deceased told the appellant to leave and later shoved him out the front door. Appellant returned within 15 or 20 minutes with a .22 caliber rifle, a struggle ensued and Williams was shot and killed.
In his first ground of error appellant complains of the court's action in overruling his motion in limine to prevent the State from alluding to the fact that the deceased was a 'special deputy sheriff, a police officer or any type of law enforcement officer,' and to limit any testimony as to the deceased's right to carry arms while engaged as a bouncer in an establishment where alcoholic beverages were served and consumed.
It appears to be appellant's contention that the deceased was a 'special deputy constable' and was not therefore a duly authorized and regular peace officer.
Although the trial judge overruled the motion he instructed the witnesses not to refer to or mention that the deceased was a peace officer until the same had been established.
Appellant complains that several times during the testimony there were references made to the fact that the deceased was a peace officer or references which left that impression. While most of such testimony was admitted over objection no further relief in the form of a jury instruction to disregard or a motion for a mistrial was made.
No testimony was offered in support of the motion in limine nor were any of the informal bills of exception perfected to show that the deceased was in fact a 'special deputy constable' as claimed. Under these circumstances, nothing is presented for review.
Next, appellant contends the court erred in refusing to grant his motion to have an investigator appointed to assist his 'court appointed appellate counsel.' See Article 26.05, Vernon's Ann.C.C.P. After judgment appellant filed a pauper's oath and his previously retained trial counsel was appointed to represent him. His subsequently filed motion to appoint an investigator was denied as well as his motion for new trial. After an examination of the record we perceive no error and conclude that the trial judge did not abuse his discretion in refusing to appoint an investigator at the time requested. Certainly an indigent appellant is entitled to court appointed counsel on...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Freeman v. State
...than allowed for one case by Art. 26.05, Sec. 1(d), V.A.C.C.P. See also Henriksen v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 500 S.W.2d 491; Shelton v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 462 S.W.2d 285; Chamberlain v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 453 S.W.2d 490; Eggleston v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 422 S.W.2d 460. The 26th ground of erro......
-
Guerrero v. State, No. 13-05-00709-CR (Tex. App. 3/13/2008)
...agree with appellant's contention that the trial court erred in refusing to fund an additional investigator. See Shelton v. State, 462 S.W.2d 285, 286 (Tex. Crim. App. 1970); Chamberlain v. State, 453 S.W.2d 490, 494 (Tex. Crim. App. C. Additional Counsel Appellant next contends that the tr......
-
Henriksen v. State
...the ruling of the Court, and we find no abuse of discretion. See Cherry v. State, 488 S.W.2d 744 (Tex.Cr.App.1972); Shelton v. State, 462 S.W.2d 285 (Tex.Cr.App.1970); Chamberlain v. State, 453 S.W.2d 490 (Tex.Cr.App.1970); Eggleston v. State, 422 S.W.2d 460 Appellant argues in his sixth gr......
-
Myre v. State
...an investigator. The court did not abuse its discretion. Chamberlain v. State, 453 S.W.2d 490 (Tex.Cr.App.1970); Shelton v. State, 462 S.W.2d 285 (Tex.Cr.App.1970). Appellant also says that the court erred in admitting improper hearsay testimony before the jury. Sandra Tharp, the complainin......