Alvarez v. State

374 S.W.2d 890, 1964 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 827
CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas
DecidedFebruary 5, 1964
Docket36458
StatusPublished
Cited by24 cases

This text of 374 S.W.2d 890 (Alvarez v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Alvarez v. State, 374 S.W.2d 890, 1964 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 827 (Tex. 1964).

Opinion

McDonald, judge.

The offense is theft of corporeal personal property over the value of $50.00; the punishment, 3 years confinement in the state penitentiary.

Appellant plead guilty to the offense charged, after being properly admonished as to the consequences of his plea by the Court. The record also reflects that the appellant properly waived a jury trial, through his attorney and in person.

The appellant relies on Pitcock v. State, 168 Tex.Cr.R. 223, 324 S.W.2d 866, in contending that there is not sufficient evidence to support his conviction on his-plea of guilty.

In the instant case, after his plea of guilty, appellant was placed on the stand and testified that each and every allegation contained in the indictment was true and correct; that he was the same Hector G. Alvarez named in said indictment, and that he took possession of the tape recorder, over the value of $50.00, without the owner’s consent and with the intent to appropriate it to his own use. He further testified that the theft in question took place in Bexar County, Texas.

*891 We find this testimony of appellant, in conjunction with his plea of guilty, sufficient to support the conviction. The testimony of appellant from the witness stand is a judicial confession and as such needs no corroboration. Martin v. State, 109 Tex.Cr.R. 101, 3 S.W.2d 90; Guerra et al. v. State, 138 Tex.Cr.R. 120, 134 S.W.2d 679; Fancher v. State, 167 Tex.Cr.R. 269, 319 S.W.2d 707; McCormick and Ray, Texas Law of Evidence, Vol. 2, Section 1223.

The Pitcock case, supra, relied upon by appellant, is easily distinguished from the case at bar, as in that case the appellants plead guilty but did not testify and thus a judicial confession was not present.

No reversible error appearing the judgment is affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Jamison v. State
73 So. 3d 567 (Court of Appeals of Mississippi, 2011)
State of Arizona v. Cesar Francisco Rubiano
150 P.3d 271 (Court of Appeals of Arizona, 2007)
Dinnery v. State
592 S.W.2d 343 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1980)
Bueno v. State
499 S.W.2d 332 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1973)
Spruell v. State
491 S.W.2d 115 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1973)
Streaker v. State
487 S.W.2d 94 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1972)
Battiste v. State
485 S.W.2d 781 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1972)
Williams v. State
483 S.W.2d 460 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1972)
Morris v. State
483 S.W.2d 260 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1972)
Knight v. State
481 S.W.2d 143 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1972)
Milligan v. State
478 S.W.2d 552 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1972)
Sexton v. State
476 S.W.2d 320 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1972)
Beaty v. State
466 S.W.2d 284 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1971)
Alonzo v. State
462 S.W.2d 603 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1971)
Stergis v. State
451 S.W.2d 914 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1970)
Rawls v. State
449 S.W.2d 57 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1969)
Smith v. State
416 S.W.2d 425 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1967)
Zulpo v. State
415 S.W.2d 650 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1967)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
374 S.W.2d 890, 1964 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 827, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/alvarez-v-state-texcrimapp-1964.