Thomas v. State
| Decision Date | 16 December 1959 |
| Docket Number | No. 31125,31125 |
| Citation | 168 Tex.Crim. 544,330 S.W.2d 201 |
| Parties | A. C. THOMAS, Appellant, v. STATE of Texas, Appellee. |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
[168 TEXCRIM 545] Roger Lewis, Dallas, for appellant.
Henry Wade, Dist. Atty., Frank W. Watts, Thomas B. Thorpe and Phil Burleson, Asst. Dist. Attys., Dallas, and Leon B. Douglas, State's Atty., Austin, for the State.
DICE, Commissioner.
The offense is burglary; the punishment, 5 years.
The State's testimony shows that on the night in question the prosecuting witness, Rita Farrar closed the cafe which she owned and operated in the City of Dallas around 10:30 P.M. and locked all doors including the outside doors to the two rest rooms in the back of the building. Later in the night Officers T. J. Taylor and A. L. Edwards of the Dallas Police Department arrested two men by the names of Turner and Cruise as they came out of the rear door of the building upon which the lock had been broken. Some thirty minutes later the officers observed two other men come to the rear of the building and enter the men's rest room after prying the lock off the door. After a noise in the rest room like the 'Squeaking of boards' was heard the two men came out and were arrested by the officers. Appellant was identified by both of the officers as one of the men who entered the rest room and the other man was identified as Marvin Barrow. Following the arrest of the appellant and his companion the officers found a pair of gloves and a lug wrench in the rest room and it was discovered that the commode had been broken and that a trap door in the ceiling above the commode leading into the attic of the building was in an open position. It was shown that the prosecuting witness had not given the appellant or anyone permission to enter the building. Appellant's written confession was introduced in evidence in which he admitted going to the premises on the night in question with Marvin Barrow and Jerry Kerbow to burglarize the building and entering the rest room after Kerbow had pried the lock off the door.
Testifying as a witness in his own behalf appellant admitted entering the rest room with his companions on the night in question but denied breaking into the rest room or having any intent to steal and stated that they only entered for the purpose [168 TEXCRIM 546] of using the rest room. Appellant stated that the reason he signed the written statement was to get hand cuffs off his hands which were giving him pain and testified in support of his application for a suspended sentence that he had never been convicted of a felony.
Appellant also called as a witness Walter Ray Cruise who testified that on the night in question he was arrested by the officers with Alfred Lee Turner as they were coming out of the back door of the building and that he had...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Nichols v. State
...Lambert v. State, 432 S.W.2d 901 (Tex.Cr.App.1968); Greeson v. State, 408 S.W.2d 515 (Tex.Cr.App.1966); Thomas v. State, 168 Tex.Cr.R. 544, 330 S.W.2d 201 (1959); Willson's Criminal Forms, Sec. 1921, p. 433; 4 Branch's Ann.P.C.2nd 833, Secs. 2513, et Grounds of error number two and three ch......
-
Howard v. State, 44758
...offense. The indictment alleges appellant did 'break and enter a house' * * * 'belonging to the said William Oatis.' In Thomas v. State, 168 Tex.Cr.R. 544, 330 S.W.2d 201, the accused was charged with burglary of a cafe, in Dallas, and raised the identical complaint made by appellant in thi......
-
Smith v. State
...Nevarez v. State, 503 S.W.2d 767 (Tex.Cr.App.1974); Howard v. State, 480 S.W.2d 191 (Tex.Cr.App.1972); Thomas v. State, 168 Tex.Cr.R. 544, 330 S.W.2d 201 (1959). All the elements discussed above are present in this The latest pronouncement in regard to the description of real property in an......
-
Ellison v. State
...contention, but do conclude that under the holdings of this Court in Brown v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 408 S.W.2d 118, and Thomas v. State, 168 Tex.Cr.R. 544, 330 S.W.2d 201, the question of intent was one for the court's determination under the facts here Appellant's own testimony that he was d......