Crume v. State

309 S.W.2d 241, 165 Tex. Crim. 555, 1958 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 3989
CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas
DecidedJanuary 8, 1958
DocketNo. 29,404
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 309 S.W.2d 241 (Crume 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
Crume v. State, 309 S.W.2d 241, 165 Tex. Crim. 555, 1958 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 3989 (Tex. 1958).

Opinion

DAVIDSON, Judge.

This is a conviction for robbery by assault, with punishment assessed at confinement in the penitentiary for life by reason of an allegation of a prior conviction for an offense of like character.

[556]*556The sufficiency of the count charging the prior conviction is attacked as being indefinite.

It was alleged that “on the 11th day of June A.D., 1952, in the Criminal District Court No. 2 of Harris County, Texas, the said ERNEST ELMER GRUME, JR., under the name of ERNEST ELMER GRUME was duly and legally convicted, in said last named court, of an offense of like character and of the same nature as that hereinbefore charged against him in this cause, to wit, the offense of Robbery by Assault, upon an indictment then legally pending in said last named court and of which the said court had jurisdiction, and the said conviction was a final conviction.”

It is appellant’s contention that the number and style of the case should have been stated so as to make more definite the allegation of prior conviction.

While it would have been the better practice, perhaps, to have him given the number and style of the case, we are unable to agree that the failure, here, to do so vitiates the count in the indictment as being vague and indefinite. In support of this conclusion, see: Palmer v. State, 128 Texas Cr. Rep. 293, 81 S.W. 2d 76; Darden v. State, 156 Texas Cr. Rep. 527, 244 S.W. 2d 231; Smith v. State, 131 Texas Cr. Rep. 472, 99 S.W. 2d 937; Branch’s P.C., p. 677.

No statement of facts upon the merits of the case accompanies the record.

No reversible error appearing, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

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

Related

Hollins v. State
571 S.W.2d 873 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1978)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
309 S.W.2d 241, 165 Tex. Crim. 555, 1958 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 3989, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/crume-v-state-texcrimapp-1958.