Simmons v. State, 09
| Decision Date | 06 February 1985 |
| Docket Number | No. 09,09 |
| Citation | 690 S.W.2d 26 |
| Parties | Thomas Ellis SIMMONS, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee. 84 114 CR. |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
This is an appeal from a conviction for the offense of unlawful use of a criminal instrument. The jury assessed punishment, enhanced by two prior felony convictions, at confinement for 50 years.
Appellant, by his first ground of error, contends the court erred in overruling his two motions to quash the indictment. The indictment, omitting the formal parts, alleges:
[D]id then and there adapt a criminal instrument, namely, home made coin-operated machine key, which said instrument was designed, made and adapted for the commission of an offense, namely, Burglary of Coin-operated Machine, with knowledge of the character of said instrument and with intent to use it in the commission of said offense.
The thrust of appellant's argument is that the language of the indictment is so indefinitely framed that he was not given notice of the offense with which he was charged, that the indictment should have alleged the manner and means "of what adaptation was made by the Defendant" and that he was "entitled ... to the allegation of facts sufficient to bar a subsequent prosecution for the same offense...."
TEX.PENAL CODE ANN. § 16.01 (Vernon Supp.1985) provides as follows:
Section 16.01. Unlawful Use of Criminal Instrument
(a) A person commits an offense if:
(1) he possesses a criminal instrument with intent to use it in the commission of an offense; or
(2) with knowledge of its character and with intent to use or aid or permit another to use in the commission of an offense, he manufactures, adapts, sells, installs, or sets up a criminal instrument.
(b) For the purpose of this section, "criminal instrument" means anything, the possession, manufacture, or sale of which is not otherwise an offense, that is specially designed, made, or adapted for use in the commission of an offense.
....
Appellant's motions to quash entitled him to the allegation of facts sufficient to bar a subsequent prosecution for the same offense and sufficient to give him precise notice of the offense with which he was charged. Doyle v. State, 661 S.W.2d 726 (Tex.Crim.App.1983). The general rule is that a motion to quash will be allowed if the facts sought are essential to giving notice. However, unless a fact is essential, the indictment need not plead evidence relied upon by the State. Jeffers v. State, 646 S.W.2d 185 (Tex.Crim.App.1981). An indictment that tracks the language of the appropriate statute is legally sufficient except in rare cases. Phillips v. State, 597 S.W.2d 929 (Tex.Crim.App.1980).
The manner and means of the "adaptation" process utilized by appellant is evidence of such "adaptation." Such evidentiary information need not be alleged in the indictment. See and compare Phillips v. State, supra. The allegations contained in the indictment were sufficient to apprise appellant of the offense with which he was charged and were sufficient to enable appellant to prepare his defense to such charge. The allegations in the indictment are certain enough for appellant to use a judgment based thereon as a plea in bar for further prosecution for the same offense. This ground is overruled.
Appellant, by his fourth ground of error, contends the court erred in overruling his motion for instructed verdict.
In viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict, we find the same to be sufficient to support the verdict.
An accomplice witness, Ron West, testified that he met appellant in San Antonio, Texas, about a week prior to the occasion in question. Appellant told him he had a key that they could use to open washing machines and dryers. They later met in Houston. West made a written statement which was introduced into evidence, without objection, wherein he stated:
When we would find a laundromat he would go in and try key [sic]. Some of the times it would not work so we would leave. He told me wehe [sic] to drive and when we came to a place he wanted to try, I would go in and be alook [sic] out for him.... [Appellant] had a tackle box with all sorts of gadgets in it. He worked on his keys and replaced the broken parts and used the rubber bands to adapt the key to different locks. He would never let me touch the key. He said it was a delicate instrument. He said it would take an expert to make the key work....
Appellant and West drove to Woodville, Texas, and located a laundromat. They entered the laundromat while it was open to the public. Appellant then unlocked and opened at least four machines and removed coins therefrom. They were arrested at the scene.
Deputy Sheriff Skinner, one of the arresting officers, testified that when he reached the scene he saw appellant throw a bag into a garbage can. Upon removing the bag, Skinner found inside the bag quarters and a homemade coin-operated key and the key had rubber bands around it. He further testified that a tackle box recovered from appellant's vehicle contained parts that could be used to construct a homemade coin-operated machine key.
Deputy Sheriff Vardeman testified that the homemade key was a lock pick, also known as a homemade coin-operated machine key, and that, based upon his experience in working on cases involving criminal instruments, the only use for such keys were in burglaries of coin-operated machines. He stated, without objection, that there was no way to his knowledge to make the key work without adapting the little pins in it and also by using rubber bands to hold the tension.
The witness Loper testified that she watched appellant opening seven to ten machines at the laundromat with some sort of key and that she saw rubber bands but could not tell what appellant was doing with them.
Michael Myers testified that he saw appellant open the coin boxes in the laundromat. He stated that appellant would "fiddle" with the key before he put it into the lock, and that he, Myers, could see hand motions and a little bit of silver sticking out.
The witness Christine Tolar, one of the owners of the laundromat, testified that on the date of this incident the washers were located in a row but they did not have locks that could be opened with the same key. They were located in such a manner that the same key would not unlock each washer. They were "mixed up" so as to require different keys.
The evidence briefly stated above was sufficient...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Nobby Lobby, Inc. v. City of Dallas
...end was specially designed or made for use in the burglary of vehicles and defendant admitted his intent to so use the wire"); Simmons v. State, 690 S.W.2d 26, 28 (Tex.App.—Beaumont 1985, no pet.) (finding that homemade key was a lockpick and its only use was in burglaries of coin-operated ......
-
Nobby Lobby, Inc. v. City of Dallas
...end was specially designed or made for use in burglary of vehicles and appellant admitted his intent to so use the wire"); Simmons v. State, 690 S.W.2d 26, 28-29 (Tex.App.--Beaumont 1985, no pet.) (affirming conviction for use of homemade coin-operated machine key to open coin boxes at a la......
-
Danzi v. State
...Courts held that the statute applied when the instrument could be used only for the commission of a crime, see, e.g., Simmons v. State, 690 S.W.2d 26, 28-29 (Tex.App.-Beaumont 1985, no pet.) (homemade key that could be used only to burglarize coin-operated machines); Carrasco v. State, 712 ......
-
Harris v. State
...Christi 1986, no pet.) (wire with loop at one end found to be specially designed for burglarizing vehicles); Simmons v. State, 690 S.W.2d 26, 28-29 (Tex.App.--Beaumont 1985, no pet.) (homemade key found useful only to burglarize coin-operated washers and dryers); Fronatt, 543 S.W.2d at 142 ......
-
Table of Cases
...1994, no writ), §2.02.2 Nissan Motor Co. v. Armstrong , 145 S.W.3d 131 (Tex. 2004), §1.02.7.1 Nixon v. Mr. Property Management Co. , 690 S.W.2d 26 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1992, writ denied), §8.13 Nobility Homes of Texas, Inc. v. Shivers , 557 S.W.2d 77 (Tex. 1977), §§1.02.2, 1.02.7.1, 1.02.......
-
Table of cases
...273 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1995, pet. ref’d) 12:130 Simmons v. State 594 S.W.2d 760 (Tex. Crim. App. 1980) 6:220 Simmons v. State 690 S.W.2d 26 (Tex. App.—Beaumont 1985, no pet.) 5:20 Simmons v. Texas 453 U.S. 902 (1981) 3:1180 Simpkins v. State 590 S.W.2d 129 (Tex. Crim. App. [Pane......
-
Criminal instruments
...to a motion to quash for failure to allege which manner and means the defendant used in the adaptation process. Simmons v. State , 690 S.W.2d 26 (Tex.App.-Beaumont 1985). §5:30 Statements and Calls While in Police Custody A defendant’s statements made during phone calls from a police statio......