Heredia v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas

Heredia v. State

493 S.W.2d 238, 1973 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 2417

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas

DecidedApril 11, 1973

DocketNo. 46706

StatusPublished

This text of 493 S.W.2d 238 (Heredia 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

Heredia v. State, 493 S.W.2d 238, 1973 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 2417 (Tex. 1973).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION

DALLY, Commissioner.

The conviction is for possession of heroin ; the punishment 10 years imprisonment.

The appellant waived a jury and entered a plea of guilty before the court. He now urges that under the provisions of Article 1.15, Vernon’s Ann.C.C.P. the evidence is insufficient to support the conviction.

Our attention is directed to a space in the form of the written stipulation entered into by the appellant. It has been completed in illegible hand writing which the appellant claims reads, “Possession of Heredia,” rather than “possession of heroin.” Even if the appellant is correct it is a mere clerical error. Cf. Hicks v. State, 476 S.W.2d 671 (Tex.Cr.App.1972). Regardless of the wording complained of, the appellant’s judicial confession reads in part, that he is “. . . the identical person named in the indictment in the above styled and numbered cause and that all the acts and allegations in said indictment . are true and correct . . .” The indictment correctly alleged the offense. The judicial confession is sufficient. Alonzo v. State, 462 S.W.2d 603 (Tex.Cr.App.1971); [239]*239Sweeten v. State, 479 S.W.2d 297 (Tex.Cr.App.1972) and Johnson v. State, 478 S.W.2d 954 (Tex.Cr.App.1972).

Furthermore, the appellant stipulated to evidence other than his judicial confession sufficient to sustain the conviction. Johnson v. State, supra.

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

OPINION

DALLY, Commissioner.

The conviction is for possession of heroin ; the punishment 10 years imprisonment.

The appellant waived a jury and entered a plea of guilty before the court. He now urges that under the provisions of Article 1.15, Vernon’s Ann.C.C.P. the evidence is insufficient to support the conviction.

Our attention is directed to a space in the form of the written stipulation entered into by the appellant. It has been completed in illegible hand writing which the appellant claims reads, “Possession of Heredia,” rather than “possession of heroin.” Even if the appellant is correct it is a mere clerical error. Cf. Hicks v. State, 476 S.W.2d 671 (Tex.Cr.App.1972). Regardless of the wording complained of, the appellant’s judicial confession reads in part, that he is “. . . the identical person named in the indictment in the above styled and numbered cause and that all the acts and allegations in said indictment . are true and correct . . .” The indictment correctly alleged the offense. The judicial confession is sufficient. Alonzo v. State, 462 S.W.2d 603 (Tex.Cr.App.1971); [239]*239Sweeten v. State, 479 S.W.2d 297 (Tex.Cr.App.1972) and Johnson v. State, 478 S.W.2d 954 (Tex.Cr.App.1972).

Furthermore, the appellant stipulated to evidence other than his judicial confession sufficient to sustain the conviction. Johnson v. State, supra.

The judgment is affirmed.

Opinion approved by the Court.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

493 S.W.2d 238, 1973 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 2417, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/heredia-v-state-texcrimapp-1973.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack