Wilson v. State

Citation398 S.W.2d 291
Decision Date24 November 1965
Docket NumberNo. 38523,38523
PartiesJohnny M. WILSON, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.
CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas. Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas

O. E. Halsell, Odessa, for appellant.

Jack Tidwell, Dist. Atty., Mike Berry, Asst. Dist. Atty., Odessa, Leon B. Douglas, State's Atty., Austin, for the State.

WOODLEY, Judge.

The offense is felony theft; the punishment, enhanced by two prior convictions for felonies less than capital, life.

The indictment alleged the theft of 'ten drill bits' of the value of more than $50 from K. L. Beck on or about November 15, 1964.

A prior conviction for burglary, on October 8, 1959, in the District Court of Crane County, and a conviction for felony theft on September 30, 1950, in the District Court of Stephens County, for an offense committed prior to the commission and conviction for said burglary, were alleged for enhancement of punishment purposes.

The statement of facts reveals that on the date alleged in the indictment Beck was General Superintendent for A. W. Thompson Drilling Contractor and had custody and control of their drill bits, fourteen of which were missing from the company yard in Ector County; that the value of ten of the bits was more than $50, and that he did not give appellant permission to take them from his possession.

Grady Orbison, an accomplice witness, testified that he, Don Nave, Tommy Barney and appellant went to A. W. Thompson's yard and got about 14 drill bits which they took to Tonkawa, Oklahoma and sold to Bill Strange; that Strange paid for the drill bits with two checks totaling $350 which they cashed and divided the proceeds.

Bill Strange, also an accomplice witness, gave similar testimony and testified that he signed the checks in appellant's car; that appellant was in the front seat at the time and Orbison was in the back seat; that the checks were cashed and appellant's name appeared thereon as endorser.

The checks were introduced in evidence and one of the drill bits was introduced.

Howard Autry, Division Manager for Smith Tool Company, testified that the drill bit introduced in evidence was of the value of $200 or $300.

Appellant's testimony and the testimony of his witness Scott raised issue as to the value of the drill bits being less than $50 and the lack of unlawful intent on his part in taking them to Bill Strange's yard in Tonkawa. He denied that the checks were given in payment for these drill bits or that he received any money from the sale of such bits, if they were sold to Strange.

The prior convictions were proved and appellant admitted his identity as the defendant so convicted.

Appellant's able court appointed counsel presents fourteen claims of error.

He complains of the overruling of four motions to quash the indictment. None of these is shown to have been presented to the trial judge for his ruling. In the absence of a bill of exception, formal or informal, appellant's attack upon the indictment must be considered as though no motion to quash or exception to the indictment was filed. Crawford v. State, 165 Tex.Cr.R. 147, 305 S.W.2d 362; Brooks v. State, 170 Tex.Cr.R. 555, 342 S.W.2d 439; Dominguiz v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 373 S.W.2d 241.

We overrule the contention that 'ten drill bits' is an inadequate description of the property alleged to have been stolen. (Art. 403, Vernon's Ann.C.C.P.) Beland v. State, 160 Tex.Cr.R. 351, 271 S.W.2d 430, Guidry v. State, 172 Tex.Cr.R. 516, 360 S.W.2d 152. See also Hendley v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 313 S.W.2d 296; Johnson v. State, 42 Tex.Cr.R. 103, 58 S.W. 69; Baldwin v. State, 76 Tex.Cr.R. 499, 175 S.W. 701.

The prior convictions alleged for enhancement were proved by certified copies of the judgments of conviction and were admitted by appellant.

The first conviction in point of time was in Stephens County on September 10, 1950. This conviction was final long before the commission of the offense for which appellant was on trial. The date of the commission of the offense for which appellant was convicted in 1950 is not material.

The conviction in Crane County in 1959 was shown to be for an offense committed after the Stephens County conviction became final. The indictment returned on June 10, 1958, alleging the offense to have been committed on or about the 15th day of May, 1958, was introduced in...

To continue reading

Request your trial
21 cases
  • Wood v. State, 67486
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Texas. Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas
    • March 3, 1982
    ...502 S.W.2d 27 (Tex.Cr.App.1973); "one automobile," Ward v. State, 446 S.W.2d 304 (Tex.Cr.App.1969); "ten drill bits," Wilson v. State, 398 S.W.2d 291 (Tex.Cr.App.1965); "one hundred twenty-five pounds of grain," Guidry v. State, 172 Tex.Cr.R. 516, 360 S.W.2d 152 (1962); "one camera," Beland......
  • State v. Rosenbaum
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Texas. Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas
    • November 30, 1994
    ...the statute still is, that such pretrial motions and pleadings must be presented before an announcement of ready. Wilson v. State, 398 S.W.2d 291, at 293 (Tex.Cr.App.1966); Bond v. State, 171 Tex.Cr.R. 119, 345 S.W.2d 520, at 523 (1961); Crow v. State, 147 Tex.Cr.R. 292, at 294, 180 S.W.2d ......
  • State v. Turner
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Texas. Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas
    • May 10, 1995
    ...By judicial construct, we held such an objection was timely if made before parties announced "ready" for trial. Wilson v. State, 398 S.W.2d 291, 293 (Tex.Cr.App.1965) (citing Bond v. State, 171 Tex.Crim. 119, 345 S.W.2d 520, 523 (App.1961)); and, Truesdale v. State, 107 Tex.Crim. 105, 296 S......
  • Fontenot v. State
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Texas
    • June 14, 1990
    ...quash the indictment and therefore waived any error. See Valadez v. State, 408 S.W.2d 109, 111 (Tex.Crim.App.1966); Wilson v. State, 398 S.W.2d 291, 293 (Tex.Crim.App.1966) (op. on reh'g).4 As previously noted, counsel for Fontenot conceded that there were sufficient links. However, he limi......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT