Webster v. State, 42845
| Decision Date | 20 May 1970 |
| Docket Number | No. 42845,42845 |
| Citation | 455 S.W.2d 264 |
| Parties | Robert WEBSTER and Leon Webster, Appellants, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee. |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
John W. Hardy, Tyler, for appellants.
Hunter B. Brush, Dist. Atty., and F. R. Files, Jr., Asst. Dist. Atty., Tyler, and Jim D. Vollers, State's Atty., Austin, for the State.
The offense is felony theft; the punishment, enhanced by two prior convictions less than capital (Art. 63 P.C.), life.
Three defendants, Robert Webster, Leon Webster and Patsy Webster, were jointly indicted and tried for felony theft of an automobile. The trial was before a jury on pleas of not guilty. At the conclusion of the evidence, the court charged the jury to return a verdict of 'not guilty' as to the defendant Patsy Webster. The jury found the defendants Robert Webster and Leon Webster guilty and the court assessed their punishment.
The first count of the indictment alleged ownership of the vehicle in George W. Oge, and the second count alleged ownership in Mike Livezy. Before any evidence was heard, the first count of the indictment was withdrawn.
In their first ground of error, appellants contend that the indictment is fatally defective for the reason (1) that ownership of the vehicle was not properly stated and (2) that the name of the owner is Mike Livezey and not Mike Livezy, as alleged in the second count of the indictment.
The evidence shows that George W. Oge was President of Oge Oldsmobile, Inc., of which Mike Livezey was Vice-President and General Manager. It was further shown that Mr. Livezey, as Vice-President and General Manager, was charged with the custody and control of the vehicle in question at the time of the commission of the offense. The evidence clearly shows that Mr. Livezey qualified as a special owner of the said vehicle.
Article 21.08 Vernon's Ann.C.C.P. provides in part:
'Where one person owns the property, and another person ahs the possession of the same, the ownership thereof may be alleged to be in either. * * *.'
The provisions of Article 21.08, supra, as to ownership apply alike to special owners as well as general owners. Bebout v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 418 S.W.2d 685; 5 Branch's Ann.P.C.2d 69, Sec. 2621.
Variance between the allegations and the proof does not render an indictment fatally defective. The variance, if fatal, may render the evidence insufficient to sustain a conviction.
The variance in the spelling of the name of the complaining witness is not fatal, the names 'LIVEZY' and 'LIVEZEY' being idem sonans. Crye v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 391 S.W.2d 57, 1 Branch's ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bailey v. State
... ... Dears v. State Richard Waldon James Richard Immaterial Affirmed Same person ... 465 S.W.2d 748 ... Webster v. State Mike Livzy Mike Liverzey Immaterial Affirmed Same person ... 455 S.W.2d 264 ... Jackson v. State ... ...
-
Parr v. State
...in the requested charges. Mitchell v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 517 S.W.2d 282; Aranda v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 506 S.W.2d 221; Webster v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 455 S.W.2d 264; Wood v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 440 S.W.2d 640. In the instant case, the charge given was substantially the same as the charge r......
-
Mitchell v. State, 49216
...as to the matters included in the requested charges. Aranda v. State, supra; Parks v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 437 S.W.2d 554; Webster v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 455 S.W.2d 264; Wood v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 440 S.W.2d 640. In the instant case, the court's charge on principals, together with his instr......
-
Hammond v. State
...ear would not find difficulty in distinguishing them when pronounced; therefore, we hold the names are idem sonans. Webster v. State, Tex.Cr.App.,455 S.W.2d 264; Rodriguez v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 363 S.W.2d 472. In Webster v. State, supra, this court, speaking through Presiding Judge Woodley......