Barfield v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas

Barfield v. State

323 S.W.2d 455, 168 Tex. Crim. 7, 1959 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 2431

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas

DecidedApril 22, 1959

Docket30633

StatusPublished

Cited by9 cases

This text of 323 S.W.2d 455 (Barfield 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

Barfield v. State, 323 S.W.2d 455, 168 Tex. Crim. 7, 1959 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 2431 (Tex. 1959).

Pincite

Opinions

MORRISON, Presiding Judge.

The offense is burglary, with two prior convictions for felonies less than capital alleged for enhancement; the punishment, life imprisonment, in compliance with the terms of Article 63, V.A.P.C.

The appellant and another man were apprehended inside a beer establishment on the night in question after the same had been closed by the owner. A back window of the place had been broken in, the cigarette machine was damaged, and a hammer was found nearby.

Proof of the prior convictions was made in the manner approved by this court in Stockwell v. State, 166 Texas Cr. Rep. 577, 316 S.W. 2d 742, and the cases there cited, by introducing the records of the Texas Prison System showing the prior convictions and by fingerprint comparison and photographs showing that the appellant was the same individual who had been previously convicted.

Appellant did not testify or offer any evidence in his own behalf.

There are no formal bills of exception in the record. The appellant in his brief seeks to raise a question as to the admissibility of certain of the records and their sufficiency to support this conviction. Such exhibits were introduced without objection at the trial. Having failed to object, the appellant is deemed to waive any complaint arising therefrom. We note, however, that this court recently, in Skaggs v. State, 167 Texas Cr. Rep. 254, 319 S.W. 2d 310, has ruled adversely to the appellant’s [9]*9contention that the records were inadmissible, and held that the evidence in a similar case was sufficient to support the conviction.

Finding the evidence sufficient to support the conviction and no reversible error appearing, the judgment is affirmed.

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

MORRISON, Presiding Judge.

The offense is burglary, with two prior convictions for felonies less than capital alleged for enhancement; the punishment, life imprisonment, in compliance with the terms of Article 63, V.A.P.C.

The appellant and another man were apprehended inside a beer establishment on the night in question after the same had been closed by the owner. A back window of the place had been broken in, the cigarette machine was damaged, and a hammer was found nearby.

Proof of the prior convictions was made in the manner approved by this court in Stockwell v. State, 166 Texas Cr. Rep. 577, 316 S.W. 2d 742, and the cases there cited, by introducing the records of the Texas Prison System showing the prior convictions and by fingerprint comparison and photographs showing that the appellant was the same individual who had been previously convicted.

Appellant did not testify or offer any evidence in his own behalf.

There are no formal bills of exception in the record. The appellant in his brief seeks to raise a question as to the admissibility of certain of the records and their sufficiency to support this conviction. Such exhibits were introduced without objection at the trial. Having failed to object, the appellant is deemed to waive any complaint arising therefrom. We note, however, that this court recently, in Skaggs v. State, 167 Texas Cr. Rep. 254, 319 S.W. 2d 310, has ruled adversely to the appellant’s [9]*9contention that the records were inadmissible, and held that the evidence in a similar case was sufficient to support the conviction.

Finding the evidence sufficient to support the conviction and no reversible error appearing, the judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

323 S.W.2d 455, 168 Tex. Crim. 7, 1959 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 2431, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/barfield-v-state-texcrimapp-1959.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack