Vela v. State, 46501
| Decision Date | 14 March 1973 |
| Docket Number | No. 46501,46501 |
| Citation | 491 S.W.2d 435 |
| Parties | Antonio Salinas VELA, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee. |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
F. B. Godinez, Jr., Lubbock, Oscar Palacios, Austin, for appellant.
Vernon D. Adcock, Dist. Atty., Lamesa, Jim D. Vollers, State's Atty., and Robert A. Huttash, Asst. State's Atty., Austin, for the State.
GREEN, Commissioner.
This is a companion case to No. 46,500, Hilario Vela Quintanilla, 491 S.W.2d 433, this day decided. The appeal is from an order revoking probation.
On April 30, 1968, appellant Vela entered a plea of guilty to the offense of arson and waived a jury. He was convicted and received a five year term, probated. Among the conditions of probation was that he shall commit no offense against the laws of this or any other State or the United States.
On June 8, 1972, the State filed a motion to revoke probation, alleging that on May 28, 1972, appellant committed the offenses of burglary and theft of a pickup truck. These were the same offenses with which Hilario Vela Quintanilla was also charged by separate motion (See No. 46,500, supra), and a joint hearing of the two motions to revoke was had. It was the theory of the State that appellant Vela was guilty as a principal with Quintanilla in the commission of the theft and burglary. The same statement of the evidence is on file in both appeals. As was the case with Quintanilla, the court found that appellant Vela committed the offenses of burglary and theft, reduced the term to four years, and appellant was sentenced accordingly.
Appellant's sole ground of error alleges an abuse of discretion by the trial court, since the evidence was insufficient to show guilt of this appellant.
Since the evidence was fully reviewed in Quintanilla, supra, it is not necessary to restate it. The evidence against appellant Vela is that he accompanied Quintanilla to the homes of Rudy Rios and Henry Rios; that he was picked up by the driver of the Kirbie pickup after it was stolen from the Kirbie home, and that he was with Quintanilla in the '66 Dodge when the men were arrested. There was no evidence of any agreement or conspiracy with Quintanilla on appellant's part to steal the pickup or burglarize the home. No one identified him as being on the Kirbie premises. No stolen property was found in his possession. There was no evidence that appellant committed any overt acts to assist, aid or accompany Quintanilla in the commission of theft or burglary. Appellant made no incriminating statements...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Scamardo v. State
...is necessary. See and compare reversals in Kubat v. State, supra; Biddy v. State, 501 S.W.2d 104 (Tex.Cr.App.1973); Vela v. State, 491 S.W.2d 435 (Tex.Cr.App.1973); Rehwalt v. State, 489 S.W.2d 884 (Tex.Cr.App.1973); Ford v. State, 488 S.W.2d 793 (Tex.Cr.1972); Nichols v. State, 479 S.W.2d ......
-
Lombardo v. State, 46656
...is a principal, which when taken with other facts may be sufficient to show that he was a participant. See and compare Vela v. State, 491 S.W.2d 435 (Tex.Cr.App.1973); Torres v. State, 491 S.W.2d 126 (Tex.Cr.App.1973); Locke v. State, 484 S.W.2d 918 (Tex.Cr.App.1972); Childress v. State, 46......
-
Toney v. State, 56710
...by the rule that presence alone will not sustain a conviction. Robinson v. State, 570 S.W.2d 906 (Tex.Cr.App.1978); Vela v. State, 491 S.W.2d 435 (Tex.Cr.App.1973). The further the time from the commission of the offense, the less probative value presence at the scene will have. In this ins......
-
Machado v. State, s. 46292
...'take off with the lights off.' Mere presence at the scene of the offense does not establish one as a principal offender. Vela v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 491 S.W.2d 435. But the evidence recited above shows more activity on the part of appellant Johnny than mere presence. The joint presence of ......