Haines v. State

391 S.W.2d 58, 1965 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 1021

• Court: Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas
• Decided: April 7, 1965
• Docket: 37170
• Status: Published

Opinions

BELCHER, Commissioner.

The conviction is for burglary with three prior convictions for non-capital offenses alleged for enhancement; the punishment, life imprisonment.

Officer Lewis testified that at approximately 7 P.M., in response to a call resulting from a flash on a burglar alarm system, he took his “canine partner,” a German Shepherd dog, to the indicated furniture store, which they entered after an employee of the alarm system arrived and unlocked a door to the building; that after the dog — trained to use his sense of hearing and seeing — jumped in that direction, Officer Lewis saw a man in the cashier’s booth. He further testified that after the appellant had been apprehended in the building, the appellant told him he had taken several transistor radios and electric mixers from the shelves and piled them on a bedspread on the floor; that the appellant next showed him how he had entered the building, pointing to the transom window, about ten feet high, through which he had entered and then dropped to the floor.

The manager of the furniture store testified that the store was closed at the time the alarm flashed, and that he did not give anyone his consent to break and enter the store and take any property.

Jimmy B. Northrup, agent for the burglary alarm system, testified that he met Officer Lewis at the furniture store; that after entering the building he saw the appellant, who said he had been taking the merchandise and piling it upon the floor.

Proof was offered, in the instant case, of the prior convictions as alleged and the identity of the appellant as the same person who was convicted in each case. See Broussard v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 363 S.W.2d 143. Moreover, no objections were made to the introduction in evidence of the authenticated copies of the alleged prior convictions.

The appellant did not testify, hut recalled Officer Lewis, who testified that he did not examine the transom window or the merchandise on the floor of the store for fingerprints hut that fingerprints were a positive manner of identification.

The court charged the jury upon the law as applicable to circumstantial evidence.

Appellant contends that the trial court erred in permitting the state to read the enhancement allegations and make proof thereof before the jury on the ground that such procedure deprived him of due process and was unconstitutional. This contention was rejected in Crocker v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 385 S.W.2d 392. In the absence of a stipulation resolving the issues of the prior convictions, proof of them as alleged in the indictment was proper. Pitcock v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 367 S.W.2d 864; Ex Parte Reyes, Tex.Cr.App., 383 S.W.2d 804.

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

Opinion approved by the Court.