Harrison v. State

168 S.W.2d 243, 145 Tex. Crim. 386, 1943 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 756
CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas
DecidedJanuary 6, 1943
DocketNo. 22344
StatusPublished
Cited by9 cases

This text of 168 S.W.2d 243 (Harrison 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
Harrison v. State, 168 S.W.2d 243, 145 Tex. Crim. 386, 1943 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 756 (Tex. 1943).

Opinions

DAVIDSON, Judge.

This is a conviction under Art. 63, P. C., commonly known as the habitual criminal statute. The punishment affixed is life imprisonment in the penitentiary.

Said Article reads as follows:

“Whoever shall have been three times convicted of a felony less than capital shall on such third conviction be imprisoned for life in the penitentiary.”

The two previous convictions relied upon in the instant case were alleged to have occurred in 1932 and 1935, respectively. With reference to the second conviction, the indictment fails to allege that the offense for which the appellant was then convicted was committed subsequent to the conviction in 1932, or the first conviction.

For the State to invoke the provisions of Art. 63, P. C., it is necessary that each succeeding conviction be subsequent to the previous conviction, both in point of time of the commission of the offense as well as the conviction therefor. The indictment must so allege. Ellis v. State, 115 S. W. (2d) 660, 134 Tex. Cr. R. 346; Childress v. State, 116 S. W. (2d) 396, 134 Tex. Cr. R. 504; Gammill v. State, 117 S. W. (2d) 790, 135 Tex. Crim. Rep. 52; Mullins v. State, 144 S. W. (2d) 565, 140 Tex. Cr. R. 261; Square v. State, 154 S. W. (2d) 852, 142 Tex. Cr. R. 493.

[388]*388An approved form of indictment covering prosecutions under Art. 63, P. C., will be found in the Childress case.

The indictment being insufficient to support a conviction as an habitual criminal, appellant’s objection to the submission thereof to the jury should have been sustained.

The judgment is reversed and the cause remanded.

The foregoing opinion of the Commission of Appeals has been examined by the Judges of the Court of Criminal Appeals and approved by the Court.

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

Related

Faulwell v. State
447 S.W.2d 940 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1969)
Wheat v. State
442 S.W.2d 363 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1969)
Andrews v. State
407 S.W.2d 507 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1966)
Rogers v. State
333 S.W.2d 383 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1960)
Guilliams v. State
261 S.W.2d 598 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1953)
Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion
Texas Attorney General Reports, 1953
Simpson v. State
233 S.W.2d 584 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1950)
Allen v. State
184 S.W.2d 470 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1945)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
168 S.W.2d 243, 145 Tex. Crim. 386, 1943 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 756, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/harrison-v-state-texcrimapp-1943.