Square v. State, 21800.
| Decision Date | 22 October 1941 |
| Docket Number | No. 21800.,21800. |
| Citation | 154 S.W.2d 852 |
| Parties | SQUARE v. STATE. |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Appeal from District Court, Smith County; Bascom Gist, Judge.
John Square was convicted of theft and he appeals.
Reversed and remanded with instructions.
W. E. Pinkston and A. S. Baskett, both of Dallas, for appellant.
Spurgeon E. Bell, State's Atty., of Austin, for the State.
Appellant was convicted in the district court of Smith County upon a charge of theft of $202 and, upon allegations in the indictment of two prior convictions of offenses of a grade of felony less than capital, the court assessed his punishment at ninety nine years in the penitentiary.
The indictment in the case alleges the commission of the offense for which he was being tried in Smith County as of July 6, 1940. On a second count it alleges that prior thereto and on the 23rd day of December, 1924, the appellant was convicted in Dallas County of a felony, to-wit, "The felony of Passing Forged Instrument". In the third count in the indictment it alleges that "prior to the commission of the aforesaid offense by the said John Square, and after the aforesaid felony conviction and judgment thereon * * * had become final against him * * * and on the 4th day of June, 1926, * * * said John Square was duly and legally convicted * * * of a felony offense less than capital, to-wit, the felony of burglary * * *". Both offenses are alleged to have been committed in Dallas County.
Upon proof of the second and third counts alleged the court assessed the penalty stated.
It will be observed that in the second count it is stated that the felony was passing forged instrument, but it is not alleged that it was knowingly passed or that it was passed as true. It, therefore, fails to allege the elements of the offense charged.
In the third count, which sets out the second conviction, it is shown that the date of the conviction was subsequent to the date of the first conviction, but it does not show when the offense was committed and, so far as the allegation will admit of proof, it might have been committed at the same time or prior to the offense for which he was first convicted. The enhanced penalty statutes are reformatory in their nature and must be strictly construed in keeping with the purpose and intention which the legislature had in mind in passing them. Ellis v. State, 134 Tex.Cr.R. 346, 115 S.W. 2d 660, and Childress v. State, 134 Tex. Cr.R. 504, 116 S.W.2d...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wheat v. State
...the punishment must be for a non-capital felony committed after the conviction for the first non-capital felony. See Square v. State, 142 Tex.Cr.R. 493, 154 S.W.2d 852; Ellis v. State, 134 Tex.Cr.R. 346, 115 S.W.2d 660; Harrison v. State, 145 Tex.Cr.R. 386, 168 S.W.2d 243; Armendariz v. Sta......
-
Faulwell v. State
...in the first noncapital felony became final. Rogers v. State, (168 Tex.Cr.R. 306) 325 S.W.2d 697; and cases cited. Square v. State, 142 Tex.Cr.R. 493, 154 S.W.2d 852; Ellis v. State, 134 Tex.Cr.R. 346, 115 S.W.2d 660; Harrison v. State, 145 Tex.Cr.R. 386, 168 S.W.2d 243; Martin v. State, 16......
-
Linley v. State, 47387
...Alvarez v. State, 472 S.W.2d 762 (Tex.Cr.App.1971); Garcia v. State, 140 Tex.Cr.R. 340, 145 S.W.2d 180 (1940); Square v. State,142 Tex.Cr.R. 493, 154 S.W.2d 852 (1941); Ellis v. State, 115 S.W.2d 660 (Tex.Cr.App.1938). To impose a lesser burden on the State merely because the enhancement pr......
-
Ex parte Balas
...authorized only when the penalty fixed by statute so provides. See Ex parte Pruitt, 139 Tex.Cr.R. 438, 141 S.W.2d 333; Square v. State, 142 Tex.Cr.R. 493, 154 S.W.2d 852.' 'The Court having fixed a punishment not authorized, the judgment is reversed * * To the same effect is the opinion on ......