Buntion v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas

Buntion v. State

444 S.W.2d 304

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas

DecidedJune 11, 1969

DocketNo. 42145

StatusPublished

This text of 444 S.W.2d 304 (Buntion 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

Buntion v. State, 444 S.W.2d 304 (Tex. 1969).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION

MORRISON, Judge.

The offense is burglary; the punishment 10 years.

Appellant’s two grounds of error are the sufficiency of the evidence and the sufficiency thereof to corroborate the accomplice testimony.

Appellant overlooks the fact that the trial court, after appellant had waived a jury and entered his plea of guilty, directed appellant be sworn, and that while under oath, he admitted that the charges contained in the indictment were true and correct and that he did break and enter the building owned by the injured party named in the indictment.

This Court has held the above to be sufficient. See Lackey v. State, 166 Tex.Cr.R. 387, 314 S.W.2d 94, and Martinez v. State, 166 Tex.Cr.R. 305, 313 S.W.2d 617.

Finding no reversible error, the judgment is affirmed.

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

OPINION

MORRISON, Judge.

The offense is burglary; the punishment 10 years.

Appellant’s two grounds of error are the sufficiency of the evidence and the sufficiency thereof to corroborate the accomplice testimony.

Appellant overlooks the fact that the trial court, after appellant had waived a jury and entered his plea of guilty, directed appellant be sworn, and that while under oath, he admitted that the charges contained in the indictment were true and correct and that he did break and enter the building owned by the injured party named in the indictment.

This Court has held the above to be sufficient. See Lackey v. State, 166 Tex.Cr.R. 387, 314 S.W.2d 94, and Martinez v. State, 166 Tex.Cr.R. 305, 313 S.W.2d 617.

Finding no reversible error, the judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

444 S.W.2d 304, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/buntion-v-state-texcrimapp-1969.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack