Wright v. State, 43853
| Decision Date | 09 June 1971 |
| Docket Number | No. 43853,43853 |
| Parties | Johnny Pruitt WRIGHT, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee. |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
John J. Browne, houston, for appellant.
Carol S. Vance, Dist. Atty., Phyllis Bell and Warren White, Asst. Dist. Attys., Houston, and Jim D. Vollers, State's Atty., Austin, for the State.
This is an appeal from a conviction for robbery by assault. The punishment was assessed at life by the court after a verdict of guilty.
At the outset appellant contends that was a fatal variance between the allegata and the probata in that the evidence reflects that the person robbed was William Wolfe, not Josephine Meyer as alleged in the indictment.
Josephine Meyer testified that on July 28, 1969, she was the bookkeeper at the A & P store at 129 Little York Road in Harris County, Texas; that at about 9:30 a.m. she had in her custody and possession approximately $3,000 as she was preparing to make a bank deposit and was expecting a Brinks' truck to pick up the same that morning. She related that the store manager, Wolfe, was in the store's office with her and was counting the money to be deposited when two men with nylon stocking masks entered the store. She identified the appellant as the man who went to the check out counter and held a gun on the cashier there and testified his companion entered the office, held a pistol on her, told her not to make any 'false moves' and told Wolfe he would shoot her if the money was not handed to him. The money was placed in a sack for the masked man. Mrs. Meyer testified she was in fear of her life or serious bodily injury and for that reason she gave up the possession of the money.
She related that as the two men left the store they jerked off their masks and she was able to get a good look at both men.
William Wolfe did not testify.
The appellant offered the defense of alibi which the jury by its verdict rejected.
It is apparent from the testimony that the money was in Mrs. Meyer's possession and that she was responsible for preparing the bank deposit. The fact that the manager Wolfe may have been counting the money did not necessarily give him exclusive possession. In Hasley v. State, 87 Tex.Cr.R. 444, 222 S.W. 579, relied on in Guyon v. State, 89 Tex.Cr.R. 287, 230 S.W. 408, it was noted that care, control and management of property are not necessarily exclusive in one person but may be joint in several persons. If there are two joint possessors, it may be alleged that one of them was in possession of the property. Thompson v. State, 91 Tex.Cr.R. 234, 237 S.W. 926.
As we view the facts, they do not show such exclusive care, control and management in Wolfe so as to render an allegation of possession in Mrs. Meyer fatal to the conviction. See Carreon v. State, 90 Tex.Cr.R. 572, 236 S.W. 985. The fact that the money was taken from Mrs. Meyer's possession rather than from her person would not call for a contrary result.
Further, quoting from Barfield v. State, 137 Tex.Cr.R. 256, 129 S.W.2d 310, this Court in Goodrum v. State, 172 Tex.Cr.R. 449, 358 S.W.2d held that any possession of the victim which is superior to that of the robber is sufficient ownership or possession to be subject to robbery, and that property taken by force and violence from an employee in a grocery store is robbery.
We find no merit in appellant's initial contention.
Appellant also advances the rather unique contention that if no evidence is offered at the penalty stage of the bifurcated trial (See Article 37.07, Vernon's Ann.C.C.P.), the court may not assess the punishment in excess of the minimum penalty set by law for the offense for which the defendant has been convicted at the guilt stage of the trial.
We have no authorities so holding and do not interpret our statutes to compel such an unrealistic result. It is not mandatory that the State offer evidence at the separate hearing on punishment. Morales v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 416 S.W.2d 436. In Morales it was expressly held that a defendant convicted of robbery could be assessed a term in excess of the minimum legal penalty although no separate hearing was conducted on the question of punishment.
In the case at bar the indictment, in addition to the primary offense, alleged prior convictions of felony theft on May 16, 1955, and unlawful possession of heroin on July 17, 1963, for the purpose of enhancement under Article 63, Vernon's Ann.P.C.
Testifying in his own behalf at the guilt stage of the trial, the appellant admitted on cross-examination he had been...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Grunsfeld v. State
...or the other], no burden of proof has ever been assigned to the broad 'issue' of what punishment to assess. See Wright v. State, 468 S.W.2d 422, at 424-425 (Tex.Cr.App.1971)." Murphy v. State, supra, at 62, n. 10.20 See and compare general charge on punishment including, where applicable, p......
-
Murphy v. State
...mind. Significantly, no burden of proof has ever been assigned to the broad "issue" of what punishment to assess. See Wright v. State, 468 S.W.2d 422 (Tex.Cr.App.1971).11 Because it assumed, without deciding, that "suitability" for probation was a material issue at the punishment phase, the......
-
State v. Furr
...See State v. Ballard, 280 N.C. 479, 186 S.E.2d 372 (1972); State v. Rogers, 273 N.C. 208, 159 S.E.2d 525 (1968); Wright v. State, 468 S.W.2d 422 (Tex.Cr.App.1971). The gist of this crime is the solicitation itself and not the nature of the crime solicited. People v. Baskins, 72 Cal.App.2d 7......
-
Yohey v. State, s. 04-88-00215-C
...at the penalty stage of the bifurcated trial. See Tamminen v. State, 653 S.W.2d 799, 802 (Tex.Crim.App.1983). Wright v. State, 468 S.W.2d 422, 424 (Tex.Crim.App.1971); Morales v. State, 416 S.W.2d 436, 437 (Tex.Crim.App.1967). At the penalty stage of the trial the jury may consider all of t......
-
Intoxication Offenses and Punishment
...at the guilt/innocence stage, as long as the judge assessing punishment is the same judge who presided at trial. [ Wright v. State , 468 S.W.2d 422, 425 (Tex.Cr.App. 1971).] The judge must make a “separate and specific affirmative finding” of the use of a deadly weapon. [ Hooks v. State , 8......
-
Intoxication Offenses and Punishment
...at the guilt/innocence stage, as long as the judge assessing punishment is the same judge who presided at trial. [ Wright v. State , 468 S.W.2d 422, 425 (Tex.Cr.App. 1971).] The judge must make a “separate and speciic a൶rmative inding” of the use of a deadly weapon. [ Hooks v. State , 860 S......
-
Intoxication Offenses and Punishment
...at the guilt/innocence stage, as long as the judge assessing punishment is the same judge who presided at trial. [ Wright v. State , 468 S.W.2d 422, 425 (Tex.Cr.App. 1971).] The judge must make a “separate and specific affirmative finding” of the use of a deadly weapon. [ Hooks v. State , 8......
-
Intoxication Offenses and Punishment
...at the guilt/innocence stage, as long as the judge assessing punishment is the same judge who presided at trial. [ Wright v. State , 468 S.W.2d 422, 425 (Tex. Crim. App. 1971).] The judge must make a “separate and specific affirmative finding” of the use of a deadly weapon. [ Hooks v. State......