Cantu v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas

Cantu v. State

225 S.W.2d 424, 154 Tex. Crim. 99, 1949 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 1361

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas

DecidedNovember 23, 1949

DocketNo. 24468

StatusPublished

This text of 225 S.W.2d 424 (Cantu 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

Cantu v. State, 225 S.W.2d 424, 154 Tex. Crim. 99, 1949 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 1361 (Tex. 1949).

Pincite

Opinions

DAVIDSON, Judge.

The offense is assault with intent to murder, with punishment assessed at fifteen years in the penitentiary by reason of a prior conviction for assault with intent to murder, as provided by Art. 62, P. C.

Avila, the injured party, a deputy sheriff, was called to the town of LaVilla, in Hidalgo County, to investigate a disturbance there by a man reported to be “shooting up the town.” Upon the deputy sheriff’s arrival, the man was identified as the ap[100]*100pellant. With the assistance of other peace officers, appellant, armed with a pistol, was apprehended on a public highway. Avila ordered him to drop the gun as he was arresting him. Thereupon, appellant opened fire upon Avila, none of the three shots fired taking effect. Avila then shot the appellant.

Testifying in his own behalf, appellant said that, due to the drinking of “Habanera” some time before, he knew nothing about what happened. He denied any enmity or ill-will toward Avila or any intent to kill him.

The facts abundantly support the verdict.

Appellant contends that the prior conviction relied upon to enhance the punishment was that of assault with intent to murder without malice, and was not an offense of the same nature as that of assault with intent to murder with malice.

Assault to murder without malice is, nonetheless, an assault with intent to murder; malice, or the absence of malice, in the commission of such offense, affects only the punishment.

Other matters appearing in the record cannot be considered, in the absence of bills of exception.

The judgment is affirmed.

Opinion approved by the court.

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

DAVIDSON, Judge.

The offense is assault with intent to murder, with punishment assessed at fifteen years in the penitentiary by reason of a prior conviction for assault with intent to murder, as provided by Art. 62, P. C.

Avila, the injured party, a deputy sheriff, was called to the town of LaVilla, in Hidalgo County, to investigate a disturbance there by a man reported to be “shooting up the town.” Upon the deputy sheriff’s arrival, the man was identified as the ap[100]*100pellant. With the assistance of other peace officers, appellant, armed with a pistol, was apprehended on a public highway. Avila ordered him to drop the gun as he was arresting him. Thereupon, appellant opened fire upon Avila, none of the three shots fired taking effect. Avila then shot the appellant.

Testifying in his own behalf, appellant said that, due to the drinking of “Habanera” some time before, he knew nothing about what happened. He denied any enmity or ill-will toward Avila or any intent to kill him.

The facts abundantly support the verdict.

Appellant contends that the prior conviction relied upon to enhance the punishment was that of assault with intent to murder without malice, and was not an offense of the same nature as that of assault with intent to murder with malice.

Assault to murder without malice is, nonetheless, an assault with intent to murder; malice, or the absence of malice, in the commission of such offense, affects only the punishment.

Other matters appearing in the record cannot be considered, in the absence of bills of exception.

The judgment is affirmed.

Opinion approved by the court.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

225 S.W.2d 424, 154 Tex. Crim. 99, 1949 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 1361, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cantu-v-state-texcrimapp-1949.