Home/Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas/Buckner v. State

Buckner v. State

571 S.W.2d 519, 1978 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 1277
CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas
DecidedOctober 4, 1978
Docket53676
StatusPublished
Cited by24 cases

This text of 571 S.W.2d 519 (Buckner 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
Buckner v. State, 571 S.W.2d 519, 1978 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 1277 (Tex. 1978).

Opinions

OPINION

ODOM, Judge.

Appellant was convicted by a jury of two counts of aggravated robbery. Punishment, enhanced under V.T.C.A., Penal Code Sec. 12.42(c), was assessed by the court at 35 years.

In his only ground of error appellant contends the trial court improperly admitted evidence of an extraneous aggravated robbery committed eleven days before the offenses charged in the indictment. It is conceded that identity was in issue, but appellant argues the extraneous offense lacked sufficient distinguishing characteristics in common with the primary offenses to render it admissible on identity. The record, however, reflects no objection on this ground. The only objection was that the evidence offered by the state showed an extraneous offense. The record reflects the following objection:

“[Defense counsel]: We feel that this testimony is not admissible for the reason that it shows an extraneous offense. However, in all candor I feel since the question of identity has come up — that would be the basis of our objection, if it does show an extraneous offense other than for which he’s being tried, Your Honor.
“THE COURT: All right. The objection will be overruled, . .”

The contention on appeal is at variance with the trial objection, and presents nothing for review. E. g. Sirls v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 511 S.W.2d 55. Further, if the objection were proper the extraneous offense was admissible under Ransom v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 503 S.W.2d 810.

[521]*521An examination of the record reveals that only one judgment and one sentence were entered. These instruments, however, recite that appellant was found guilty of “Aggravated Robbery as charged in both counts of the indictment.” Although separate instruments for each count is the better practice, the instruments here are sufficient. Durham v. State, 557 S.W.2d 526 (1977).

The judgments are affirmed.

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

Related

Bishop v. State
837 S.W.2d 431 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1992)
Beets v. State
767 S.W.2d 711 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1988)
Mims v. State
732 S.W.2d 95 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1987)
Boutwell v. State
719 S.W.2d 164 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1985)
Lewis v. State
674 S.W.2d 423 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1984)
Plante v. State
674 S.W.2d 368 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1984)
Dickey v. State
646 S.W.2d 232 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1983)
McClure v. State
648 S.W.2d 667 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1982)
Cook v. State
629 S.W.2d 233 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1982)
Wintters v. State
616 S.W.2d 197 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1981)
Rubio v. State
607 S.W.2d 498 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1980)
Chambers v. State
601 S.W.2d 360 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1980)
Sanders v. State
604 S.W.2d 108 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1980)
Jones v. State
587 S.W.2d 115 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1979)
Murphy v. State
587 S.W.2d 718 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1979)
Buckner v. State
571 S.W.2d 519 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1978)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
571 S.W.2d 519, 1978 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 1277, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/buckner-v-state-texcrimapp-1978.